The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Unz ArchiveBlogview
American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated?
General Patton U.S. commemorative stamp, issued in 1953.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
General Patton U.S. commemorative stamp, issued in 1953. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

During the long Cold War many Russians grew sufficiently disenchanted with the lies and omissions of their own news outlets that they turned to Western radio for a glimpse of the truth.

The growth of the Internet has now provided Americans with a similar opportunity to click on a foreign website and discover the important stories that have somehow escaped the attention of their own leading journalists. Ironically, much of such “alternative media” coverage actually appears in the leading British newspapers, eminently respectable and published in our closest historic ally.

For example, three or four years ago I noticed a link on a prominent libertarian website suggesting that George S. Patton, one of America’s most renowned World War II military commanders, had been murdered by order of the U.S. government. Not being someone much drawn to conspiracy-mongering, the lurid claim seemed totally outlandish, but I decided to click my mouse and harmlessly examine a bit of Internet fringe-lunacy. However, the source turned out to be a lengthy article in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph, one of the world’s leading newspapers, describing a newly published book based on a decade of detailed research and interviews undertaken by an experienced American military affairs writer.

The book and the article had appeared in 2008 and I had never heard a word about the story in any of my major American newspapers. The description seemed sufficiently factual and detailed that I consulted a couple of prominent academics I know, with backgrounds in history and political science. They had also never encountered the theory, being just as surprised as I was by the material and by the fact that such remarkable revelations had never received any attention in our own country, home of the freest and most scandal-mongering media in the world.

WilcoxBook With curiosity getting the better of me, I ordered the book for about $8 from Amazon.com.

Target Patton, written by Robert K. Wilcox and published by Regnery Press, runs over 450 pages, with an extensive bibliography and nearly 700 footnotes. The many years spent by the author on this project are clearly reflected in the contents, which include numerous personal interviews and the careful analysis of an enormous amount of primary and secondary source material. I’ve seldom encountered so detailed and seemingly exhaustive a work of investigatory journalism, quite understandable given the explosive nature of the charges being made. And yet the expose had never reached readers of the American mainstream media.

I personally found the evidence for Patton’s assassination quite persuasive, even overwhelming, and any curious readers can currently order the book for as little as $2.93 plus shipping and judge for themselves.

Wilcox himself had been just as shocked as anyone else when he first encountered the surprising claims, but the initial evidence persuaded him to invest years fully researching the theory before publishing the results. Some of his major findings seem quite telling.

In the months before his death, Patton had become a powerful critic of the American government, its conduct of World War II, and its policy toward the Soviets. He planned to resign from the military after returning to the U.S. and then begin a major public speaking tour against America’s political leadership; as one of our most celebrated war heroes, his denunciations would certainly have had a huge impact. His fatal car accident took place the day before his scheduled departure home, and he had narrowly escaped death twice before under very strange circumstances.

There are extensive personal interviews with the self-confessed government assassin, then attached to America’s OSS intelligence service, the wartime forerunner of the CIA. This operative had a long and substantially documented career in exactly that sort of activity, both during the war itself and for decades afterward, allegedly working internationally on a free-lance basis and “weeding” selected human targets both for the CIA and various other employers. Towards the end of his life, he became disgruntled over what he regarded as his ill-treatment by ungrateful U.S. government bureaucrats and also a bit guilt-ridden over having been responsible for the death of one of America’s greatest military heroes, prompting his decision to go public, with his claims backed by a voluminous personal diary. Numerous other interviews with individuals connected with the circumstances of Patton’s death seemed to largely corroborate the theory.

The assassin recounted that OSS Chief William Donovan had ordered the killing on the grounds that Patton had “gone crazy,” becoming a major threat to American national interests. Around this same time, a military counter-intelligence field agent began encountering credible reports of a planned assassination plot against Patton and attempted to warn his superiors, including Donovan; not only were his warnings disregarded, but he was repeatedly threatened, and at one point, even placed under arrest. It seems clear that Donovan’s orders came from his superiors, either in the White House or elsewhere.

The motivation may or may not have ultimately had a foreign origin. Over the last twenty years, scholars such as John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr have exhaustively demonstrated that during the 1930s and 1940s a large network of Communist spies had gained enormous influence in the uppermost reaches of the American government. Indeed, Wilcox carefully documents how the OSS itself had been heavily infiltrated at the highest levels by elements of the Soviet NKVD, and that during this particular period, the two intelligence organizations were in an ambiguous quasi-partnership, with Donovan being especially eager to curry political favor with the pro-Soviet elements near the top of the U.S. government.

Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union. It is easy to understand how Stalin and those American leaders in his orbit might have decided that Patton’s physical removal was an absolute priority.

ORDER IT NOW

At the time of his death, Patton was the highest ranking U.S. military officer in Europe, and the story naturally became front-page news throughout the world. Several official reports were produced regarding the exact circumstances of the very strange traffic accident responsible, but all of these have completely disappeared from U.S. government files. I find it difficult to imagine a non-sinister explanation for this.

These few paragraphs provide merely the smallest slice of the enormous amount of documentary material and painstaking analysis that Wilcox spent ten years compiling for his outstanding book. Obviously, many questions remain, and absolute proof is impossible seventy years after the event. But from my perspective, the likelihood of an assassination, almost certainly with the active involvement of top American officials, seems overwhelming.

I have also been reliably informed that for many years there has been a widespread belief within the American intelligence community that Patton was eliminated by the U.S. government for political reasons. Such quiet knowledge in those circles is hardly surprising. The alleged government assassin first publicly confessed his guilt in the plot decades ago in front of a journalist at an OSS reunion dinner in DC, while seated at the table of his longtime friend and colleague William Colby, former Director of the CIA. And although the resulting local news stories were completely ignored by the national media, it is hardly surprising that word soon got around within intelligence circles.

Perhaps some experienced scholar with a different perspective could invest time and effort attempting to refute the powerful case set forth by Wilcox, though none apparently has. But suppose that the evidence for this theory is not nearly as overwhelming as it appears, and only sufficient to provide a reasonable possibility that the story is true, perhaps a 25% likelihood. I would argue that if there exists even a slight chance that one of America’s most renowned generals—our top-ranking military officer in post-WWII Europe—was assassinated for political reasons by America’s own government, the scandal would surely rank among the greatest in modern U.S. history.

The book was written by a reputable author and published by a mainstream though conservative-oriented press, but it went unmentioned in America’s major national publications, whether conservative or liberal, nor was any subsequent investigation undertaken. A leading British newspaper reported what American journalists had totally ignored.

It seems likely that if a similar book had been published providing such solidly-documented historical revisionism regarding the sudden death of a top Russian or Chinese general at the close of the Second World War, the story might have easily reached the front pages of the New York Times, and certainly the weekly Book Review section. Perhaps there might even have been considerable media coverage if the victim had been a prominent Guatemalan general, whose name was totally unknown to most of the American public. Yet similar allegations surrounding the demise of one of America’s most famous and popular military leaders of the 1940s have been of no interest to America’s mainstream journalists.

Once again, we must distinguish the two issues. Whether or not I am correct in believing that the case for Patton’s assassination is overwhelming might certainly be disputed. But the fact that the American media has completely failed to report these revelations is absolutely undeniable.

 

As mentioned, I had originally encountered this fascinating history a few years ago, and at the time had been too preoccupied with other matters to publish a column as I’d intended. But having decided to return to the topic, I quickly reread the book to refresh my memory, and found it even more persuasive than I had the first time round. Eight years after original publication, I still failed to find any coverage in our timorous mainstream newspapers, but given the enormous growth of looser web-based journalism, I wondered what might have appeared elsewhere.

Googling around a bit, I didn’t find a great deal. A couple of times over the years, Wilcox had managed to place short pieces of his own somewhere, including the New York Post in 2010 and in the American Thinker webzine in 2012, with the latter including mention of a possibly important new witness who had finally decided to come forth. But otherwise his astonishing book seems to have been entirely shoved down the memory-hole.

On the other hand, others have recently begun trying to take advantage of his research, while refashioning the narrative into one more likely to find favor within the American establishment and the media it controls.

OReillyBook Most notable was Bill O’Reilly, the FoxNews pundit, who published Killing Patton in 2014, another in his series of popular history best-sellers co-authored by Martin Dugard. The very title itself challenged the official story of an accidental car crash, and I eagerly opened the book, only to be severely disappointed. The presentation seemed thin and padded, with perhaps 10% of the text merely rehashing the analysis provided by Wilcox while the remaining 90% represented a rather conventional historical summary of the Western Front near the end of the Second World War, including heavy coverage of the Nazi concentration camps, and with little of this material having any connection to Patton. The only interesting part of the text seemed based on Wilcox’s original research, and that relationship was heavily disguised by the total absence of any footnotes, with the only indication being a single short sentence near the end citing the Wilcox book as a very helpful summary of “the conspiracy theories.” Not unreasonably, the latter author seemed somewhat irritated at the lack of appropriate notice or credit he received.

O’Reilly’s dumbed-down book sold over a million copies, with a title proclaiming Patton’s assassination. But the resulting media coverage was still rather scanty and largely negative, criticizing the supposed indulgence of “conspiracy theories.” Media Matters summarized the reaction as “Historians Rip O’Reilly’s New Patton Book,” and given the near-total lack of any documentation provided by O’Reilly, much of that criticism may not have been unreasonable. Thus, the media totally ignored a heavily documented and persuasive book, while attacking and ridiculing a weak one on the same subject, with this dual approach constituting an effective means of obscuring the truth.

America’s opinion leaders tend to rely upon our most elite national newspapers for their knowledge of the world, and the only coverage I found in these of O’Reilly’s best-seller was a rather odd opinion piece by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. Cohen seemed rather uninterested in the assassination question one way or another, but harshly condemned O’Reilly for devoting insufficient pages to discussing Patton’s alleged anti-Semitism. Indeed, he almost implied that some of the remarks later found in Patton’s private diaries were sufficiently nasty toward Jews that perhaps no American should even care whether our highest ranking general in Europe had been killed by his own government or anyone else. The mentality of our mainstream media these days is very strange indeed, and we live in the world it creates for us.

Most recently, the success of the O’Reilly book and our revived Cold War with Russia may have led to production of a new documentary making the case for Patton’s assassination, but possibly reconstructing the facts with a distorted twist. Wilcox’s original research had demonstrated that top American leaders organized Patton’s assassination, though probably in conjunction with the Soviets. O’Reilly provided some of those facts in his book, but his media interviews airbrushed out the American role, simply declaring that “Stalin killed Patton.” And based on news reports, I wonder if this new documentary, apparently made without Wilcox’s involvement, will similarly ignore the massive evidence of direct U.S. government involvement, while perhaps attempting to fix the blame solely upon the nefarious Russians.

Finally, this important historical incident provides a useful means of evaluating the credibility of certain widely-used resources. For years I’ve emphasized to people that Wikipedia is absolutely worthless as a source of reliable information on any relatively “controversial” topic. Given Patton’s enormous historical stature, it is hardly surprising that his Wikipedia entry is exceptionally long and detailed, running over 15,000 words, with nearly 300 references and footnotes. But this exhaustive exposition contains not the slightest suggestion of any suspicious aspects to his death. “Wiki-Pravda” indeed.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
The American Pravda Series
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Patton was a virulent anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html

    As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind.

    One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

    “Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.

    “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.”

    Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch.

    Under Patton, Nazis prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Patton was neither a Nazi sympathizer (he loved France), nor an anti-Semite, virulent or otherwise. Both are post war smears of Patton, and neither were true.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    so someone who had brains and the courage to stand up. what did he get in return? assassination attempts and a final successful one.

    I am just glad that in the internet + smartphone age, assassinations are no longer possible.

    to be honest, america reaped the benefits of 2 world wars waiting till the very end to join both. patton was jeopardizing all of it. why would the people in control allow it :( I am surprised patton didn't take better measures to protect himself. he was up against people who started and finished 2 world wars just for the very power(national interest) he tried to negate.

    , @Rehmat
    Quoting THE JEW YORK TIMES as a reliable source is just like believing that the Grand Mufti of Palestine twisted Hitler's arms to carry-out genocide of non-Zionist European Jews.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/
    , @Anonymous
    Patton said we fought the wrong enemy we should have fought the Russians and that the Germans were the only decent people left in Europe after the war. He figured out the real game of the traitors and was going to come back and become President and root them out so they killed him. Douglas Bazatta OSS confessed in 1974 to a room full of witnesses that Wild Bill Donovan hired him to murder Patton. Here we are at the beginning of WW III just as planned, so a bunch of demon possessed- Christ hating trash- can have their world supremacy and the ultimate Bolshevik promise of a planet full of dead goys and all the property of the world in their hands. Patton's death was a great tragedy for humanity. Wailing and gnashing you bastards, that's what awaits you murdering, perverted cosmic trash. Real Catholic or Hell, make the choice.
    , @Israel Shamir
    Whoever killed Patton (the Russians or the Americans) did a good thing - otherwise there would be a USSR-US war in 1945, as Churchill wanted and demanded. If Patton would get to power, he and Churchill would unleash the most horrible war. Mind you, many Russian soldiers and officers of that time thought it would be good to fight to the very end and place the Red banner on the Capitol Hill. The Red Army was very strong then. So it was good to get rid of Patton and bring peace. Naturally kudos to Ron Unz for uncovering the story!
    , @Truth
    Elite Jewry is responsible for both world wars and any student of history is aware of this. Patton wasn't an antisemite, he just called it like he saw it. There are more Jews in America then anywhere else in the world. They came to America in droves, right before the war started. People are sick of the so-called "chosen" people, with their greed and hatred for all other races, calling us "goyim" and believing we will be their slaves after their "Antichrist" Messiah arrives.

    There was no Jewish holocaust but there was a German and Christian Holocaust. Over 60 million Christians were murdered during WWI and WWII, yet we have no museums or memorials for our dead, not like the jew does (in foreign countries in which people don't care about the jews anyhow). Every single day we have to read or hear of some article or movie about the jews and their suffering under the "evil" Nazis.

    People are waking up and they are becoming angry.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1537359
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Patton’s death is rare case where our OSS/CIA may have done some good.

    Mr. Unz, please review a much more important book about WWII–Day of Deceit

    Here are clues to the canoes he upset after he documented Roosevelt’s plan to sucker Americans into WWII:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Deceit

    The author is a former US Navy officer who served in the Pacific during WWII, and a retired reporter from the Oakland Tribune. Our government still keeps many related documents classified! After his book was published, they removed several documents from the National Archives! Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    A book written by John Toland back in the 80's "Infamy," dealt with the deceit behind Pearl Harbor and does a better job than Stinnett does.
  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I have the book and it is astounding. Mr Unz you are right on the money to surmise it was a political hit by the communist sympathizers against a powerful anti-communist.

    The end of WWII was a charade. We, the USA, didn’t really win it. Patton was right. He knew the USSR needed to be confronted and not given any territory!

    We are still living with the fallout in the form of the E.U. which was/is a Soviet project.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Caplan
    The EU might be leftist utopianism, but a united and integrated Europe that incorporates the old Warsaw Pact client states is hardly something the Soviets would have backed.
    , @MarkinLA
    He knew the USSR needed to be confronted and not given any territory!

    From what I have read, the Red Army at the end of WWII had 250 divisions while the US had 99 and Britain 49. I suspect Patton wasn't as aware of this as FDR was.
    , @animalogic
    The EU: CIA project surely ?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    The communist sympathisers and/or the Soviet Union have to be responsible if he was murdered as I have argued in some detail. But it is surely atomic weapons that were the final motivating circumstance. That means August 1945 was a critical time as that's when Stalin might have got really worried because the US had shown itself to be ruthless in the use of the bomb and Stalin couldn't be sure how many bombs would be available. But there is a problem if the book insists that there was an American assassin instructed by Donovan because the dates don't fit, OSS having closed down in September. Was some gun for hire going to seek out Patton and kill him in December because his ex-boss in a now defunct organisation once told him to?
  4. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Seems to me all but certain that Patton was assassinated. It also seems as likely as not to me that Joe McCarthy and James Forrestal were both killed while at the Bethesda Naval Hospital for similar reasons (Communism, Judaism, Soviet spies and sympathizers, leftists in high position in the US government) as Patton was silenced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Forrestal's death has always caused questions because of the manner in which he supposedly jumped from a window (It would appear he was stuffed through the window from which he "fell"). McCarthy, however, died from complications of alcoholism. McCarthy's death has never raised any questions as he was already marginalized because of his overreach.
    , @guest
    McCarthy had already been humiliated; he wouldn't have been worth the trouble. Actually, had he lived and got back in the news it'd probably have been win-win. He either embarrasses himself further (right or wrong, doesn't matter, because they beat him the first time around when he was right and they were wrong, mostly) or he hits on more unmentionable truths and they say, "Oh, that crazy/mean old McCarthy!"
    , @MInnesota Mary
    This whole thing smells of Allen Dulles. I agree that McCarthy and Forrestal were likely done in at Bethesda Naval Hospital. I wish someone, like Stephen Kinzer, would do a thorough investigation on the death of James Forrestal and write a book about it.
  5. There are Patton memes floating around alt-rightish type lanes of the internet quoting him as supposedly saying “We fought the wrong enemy”. Not exactly a welcome sentiment to the kind of people view the fight against Nazi Germany as having been a holy war.

    The reluctance of respectable media to consider the extent to which the Roosevelt administration wasn’t just anti-German but pro-Soviet was manifest with notable passion in the angry condemnation of Diana West’s American Betrayal.

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Betrayal-Assault-Nations-Character/dp/0312630786/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1471843529&sr=1-1

    Read More
    • Agree: Avenge Harambe
    • Replies: @TomO
    I would not be surprised if Patton had, in fact, made the statement of "we fought the wrong enemy." A quote I had read many years ago, supposedly from Winston Churchill, after it became obvious that Stalin was not planning on withdrawing from captured territory was. "I think we slaughtered the wrong pig." After all, there had been many communiques from Hitler suggesting that the Bolsheviks planned to push all the way to the Atlantic and suggesting Britain should join him in defeating them in Russia. As it turned out, it probably was Patton's presence in Europe that prevented "Uncle Joe" from completing his mission.
    , @Anonymous
    You lost me at Regnery.
  6. The methodology sort of does seem to be reminiscent of the NKVD/ KGB, which did arrange similar “accidents” and had a long history of killing inconvenient generals. Given that the idea of taking on the Soviet Union after finishing with Hitler was actually considered, and Stalin himself was preparing for a showdown until he got word of the successful A-bomb tests (both documented in recent WW2 books), this part of the assassination theory is quite plausible. Involvement of US government officials is much less plausible, though they may have decided to look the other way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    " The methodology sort of does seem to be reminiscent of the NKVD/ KGB, which did arrange similar “accidents” and had a long history of killing inconvenient generals." - And this is why the US government and CIA-controlled media decided to black out the fact of assassination of George S. Patton, "one of America’s most renowned World War II military commanders?" Considering the nastiness of zionists -- and their proven predilection for assassinating "undesirables" (flotilla anybody?) -- one cannot exclude the influence of zionists on the blackout. As it was said above, Patton "was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result." You see, his sin against Jews was so grave that it did not matter that Patton was "one of America’s most renowned World War II military commanders." Zionist gratitude.
    , @Anonymous
    Ron Unz is correct with his assessment that wikipedia is worthless - at least in most cases. Nevertheless it sometimes provides some valuable pieces of information as sources for further research.

    Several available snippets on Google Books confirm the considerations of a surprise attack on the USSR (Operation Unthinkable; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable).
    , @Anonymous
    It is very clear from post-Soviet records and files that the highest levels of the FDR regime were infiltrated by Soviet agents and assets, including FDR's "co-president" Harry Hopkins.

    So to say "Involvement of US government officials is much less plausible..." betrays a certain ignorance of the true state of affairs regarding such infiltration.

    In other words, the Soviets own records clearly establish that "Tail gunner" Joe McCarthy was absolutely correct about his claims that Communists had infiltrated the US Government .
  7. “the freest and most scandal-mongering media in the world”

    From a British perspective the US media has always seemed incredibly tame and conformist. Of course our media class is mostly left-liberal too, but even before the current Trump era the slavish devotion of the US media to the Powers That Be was very notable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    “the freest and most scandal-mongering media in the world”

    From a British perspective the US media has always seemed incredibly tame and conformist.
     
    Actually, I was being a bit sarcastic, but apparently not doing a good enough job at it...
  8. Yeah right Patton 3¢ stamp my guess is 1954 or five. Not gonna look it up/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    US postage rates are an excellent reflection of inflation. A three-cent stamp in the 1950s was the standard first-class postage stamp, equivalent to a forty-eight (?) cent stamp today.
  9. I remember hearing that Patton was assassinated from a relative, who claimed to have heard it from someone in the military. Sorry I’m short on details; I’ve genuinely forgotten most of the conversation, as it happened some time ago. Whether this was a genuine source, or someone was just relaying the information from one of these books, I don’t know, but at least someone was paying attention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It may have been because that story was goung round in just that way that MSM editors didn't pay much attention. On the one hand your forgetting the details proved that it wasn't a great piece of news for boosting circulation. On other they would say it was just typical barrack room/lower deck scuttlebutt. There are a lot of fabulists about.
  10. The “Patton was assassinated by the Sovs” meme has floated around for years. That Washington was behind it in some part or totally is not the wildest permutation, given how outspoken Patton was against the US government of the time. Mac Arthur was known to have been interested in running for President, but stuck to his knitting in rebuilding the Japan even as Truman blackballed any chances Mac Arthur might have had for a 1948 run by delaying a final peace treaty with Japan … maybe Mac Arthur sticking to Japan was a result of seeing what happened to Patton. For that matter, there was a lot of top-brass who mysteriously stayed out of the political arena after the war … I guess we thought they were all like Cincinnatus, but who knows. Maybe we need to dig into thoe papers of America’s top generals to see if we can gain better insight.

    Read More
  11. Perhaps the karma of the Bonus Marchers(Eisenhower,Patton and McArthur). They served their paymasters then and were seemingly unable to articulate their mistake of feeling they were insiders. Petreaus,McChrystal, Zinni( did he really think Yemen was a good refueling stop for the USS Cole) -same as it ever was.

    Read More
  12. {Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union}

    If Patton thought Red Army was weakened at the end of WW2, he was delusional. The Red Army was a steamroller towards the end of WW2. It had about 12 million men under arms, with seemingly inexhaustible reserves. Production of tanks, airplanes, armaments was at a peak. Its generals and officers had defeated and crushed the Wehrmacht, the finest military force at the time. The same beaten down Wehrmacht, btw, which chased and routed well rested, well equipped American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Saved only by the US Air Force (…no Luftwaffe left by that time).

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.
    Which btw did stop Stalin. Not from doing anything in Europe, but in Asia Minor.

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus’s army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.
    When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

    The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan’s surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan’s surrender, but as a message to Stalin."
    That is a very well grounded belief - actually, the only plausible explanation to the war crime.
    , @dahoit
    Yes,the Soviets would have run roughshod over the west,and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces,but probably not enough for victory.
    Plus the war weary drafted American troops wanted to just go home,and there would have been mutiny over an escalation into fighting the SU for how long?
    And Patton,a great fighting general,was an upper crust right wing elitist,and as the SU eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings,the lack of conflict was good,as no one had to die for nothing,as today's idiotic stupidity reveals.
    Yankee come home.
    , @CK
    The Russian Army in the East had already launched sea-borne invasions of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands as well as wiping out the Japanese Kwantung army in Manchuria, taking half of Korea ( as per an agreement with the USA ) and were in preparation for an invasion of Hokkaido Island. There were no Japanese military assets remaining on Hokkaido to impede the Russians. The Russians accomplished all this in the space of 11 days. The 9th to the 20th of August 1945.
    , @guest
    I think it's fair to say that any nation that just lost 20 million (million!) or so people is weakened. Plus, you don't figure in what destruction the Werhmacht wrought. Also, weak is a relative term. They were weak compared to what they would be after a post-war buildup, presumably, so better to go after them now than later. That's the logic.
    , @utu
    "During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR)" - Never heard of that. Any reference?
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Saved only by the US Air Force
     

     Is there some reason we could not use our air force against the Soviets? Handicap? Would it not save us then too?


    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.

     

    We did, in fact, have the atom bomb, which you state would be able to "stop" them.
    , @Hibernian
    That steamroller depended on a lot of American aid.
  13. @Clyde
    Yeah right Patton 3¢ stamp my guess is 1954 or five. Not gonna look it up/

    US postage rates are an excellent reflection of inflation. A three-cent stamp in the 1950s was the standard first-class postage stamp, equivalent to a forty-eight (?) cent stamp today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Yes indeed and was running through my mind too :)
  14. I’ve never come across this notion before. I have, however, seen speculation that Patton had become clinically insane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Jews automatically assume that anyone opposed to their rule of the world, is clinically insane.
  15. The claim that Patton was assassinated by the U.S. government because he wanted to fight the Russians is something that I’ve heard many times. The assassination part was covered in the Patton movie from the 70s, I think. If you watch late-night television, you might catch the old Leonard Nemoy show “In Search Of,” which covered this topic.

    The Patton assassination is a common rumor. I wonder if McArthur feared a similar fate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antiwar7
    Growing up, I also heard rumors that Patton was killed by the US govt, because he wanted to go on and fight the Soviet Union. I heard that from my father, who fought in WW II, and from a friend whose uncle was under Patton's command.
  16. Intrigued by Mr Unz’ post, I looked for writing that contests Wilcox’s premise. Via an amazon.com review, I found the webpage The Death of General George S. Patton by Peter Hendrikx. It offers a point-by-point refutation of the elements of the “murder” argument, favoring “accident.”

    * Hendrikx appears to be a sober and well-regarded Dutch author, whose main interest is Operation Market Garden.

    * The linked page contests many theories rather than focusing on Wilcox’s, making for an awkward read.

    * Most seriously, Hendrikx doesn’t offer links or footnotes, diminishing the value of his essay.

    Perhaps readers will post links to other books or websites that subject “Target: Patton” to careful scrutiny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    I didn't find the rebuttal very convincing, particularly since the author dismisses out of hand the last book written by Ladislaw Farrago. Farrago is recognized as the premier biographer of Patton and in his last book he leans towards the idea that Patton's death was the result of a series of assassination attempts. The cite fails utterly to address this latter point: In the months before Patton's death an airplane and a ground vehicle in which he was traveling were both attacked under very mysterious circumstances which have never been investigated or explained.
    , @Ron Unz

    Intrigued by Mr Unz’ post, I looked for writing that contests Wilcox’s premise. Via an amazon.com review, I found the webpage The Death of General George S. Patton by Peter Hendrikx. It offers a point-by-point refutation of the elements of the “murder” argument, favoring “accident.”
     
    Thanks for locating that attempted rebuttal, which I hadn't previously noticed. However, even leaving aside the poor formatting and lack of references, I didn't find the critique very persuasive.

    (1) The author claims that for thirty years there was never any serious suggestion that Patton was murdered However, Farago and other sources claim exactly the opposite, namely that rumors of Patton's assassination began circulating almost immediately, though it's not clear how seriously anyone took the charges.

    (2) Even more seriously, the author argues that the alleged OSS assassin's initial claims were made no earlier than 1979 and were probably inspired by a fictional book published in 1974, later made into a film. However, Wilcox scrupulously explored exactly this possibility and interviewed several credible individuals, including Bernard Knox (a renowned classics scholar and former OSS agent) and a mainstream journalist, who confirmed that they had been told the story in 1972, years before the book appeared. Therefore, if anything, the book may have been inspired by circulating rumors of the assassination rather than the other way round.

    These sorts of very serious errors lead me to doubt that Hendrikx's reliability or that he read the Wilcox book carefully, so I'd tend to discount most of his other material.
  17. Is the assassination of General Patton, ordered by or abetted by lawfully constituted American authority, even plausible? Well, in my locality, extortion, bribery and solicitation of bribes, assault and battery, falsification of documents, perjury, and lesser crimes are an ordinary part of political discourse here. A former mayor, a genuinely tough and smart guy, told the local paper he had a remote starter installed in his car because he feared assassination by the Mob, which in part controlled City Hall.

    So General Patton in 1945 wants to speak out against the Soviet-American condominium in Europe? At least one thought that comes to mind is the possibility that Patton could thereby unintentionally delegitimize the service of a great many American soldiers, who were just then being paid off with unemployment comp, the G. I. Bill, and so on. So, yes, America’s leadership caste would have been horrified by a Patton straying from the reservation.

    I don’t know if General Patton was assassinated, but this is a story we need to pay more attention to. Had there been strong critics of WWII immediately after the conflict, we might have been presented with a better palette of political opportunities.

    Read More
  18. The theory that Patton was assassinated and did not die by accident goes back to the 1970s. The film Brass Target ( 1978 ) alleged that Patton was murdered by the gang who stole the Reichsbank bullion at the end of WWII. It was a big budget film and starred well-known actors like Sophia Loren, George Kennedy, John Cassavettes and Max Von Sydow. In Britain, it has been repeated on freeview channels every couple of years since.
    I remember at the time and later in the 1980s and 1990s articles in the British press dealing with Patton’s death. The unusual nature of his death is discussed as well as allegations that he was assassinated. Patton wanted to take Berlin and Czechoslovakia before the Soviets as he was quite sure they would not leave. It was claimed he would resign his command and publicly dish the dirt on Yalta. This would be very embarrassing for Allied governments to say the least. It is alleged that American and British Intelligence got someone to murder him.
    Nearly all reviewers wrote that there was no evidence that Patton’s death was anything other than an accident and dismissed such theories. Others were more equivocal and some mentioned the theory that the Soviets had assassinated him so that he would be replaced by a less hostile figure.
    From what Mr Unz has written, all of this seems to have been unreported by the American MSM, especially the press. In Britain, I’ve known of the theories that Patton was assassinated by agents of the American and British governments since the 1980s. The faults of the British MSM are numerous, but at least some of them, e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Express, supported Brexit.
    Trump is America’s Brexit. No part of the American MSM supports Trump. The American MSM really is the Lugenpresse

    Read More
  19. @Ed
    The methodology sort of does seem to be reminiscent of the NKVD/ KGB, which did arrange similar "accidents" and had a long history of killing inconvenient generals. Given that the idea of taking on the Soviet Union after finishing with Hitler was actually considered, and Stalin himself was preparing for a showdown until he got word of the successful A-bomb tests (both documented in recent WW2 books), this part of the assassination theory is quite plausible. Involvement of US government officials is much less plausible, though they may have decided to look the other way.

    ” The methodology sort of does seem to be reminiscent of the NKVD/ KGB, which did arrange similar “accidents” and had a long history of killing inconvenient generals.” – And this is why the US government and CIA-controlled media decided to black out the fact of assassination of George S. Patton, “one of America’s most renowned World War II military commanders?” Considering the nastiness of zionists — and their proven predilection for assassinating “undesirables” (flotilla anybody?) — one cannot exclude the influence of zionists on the blackout. As it was said above, Patton “was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result.” You see, his sin against Jews was so grave that it did not matter that Patton was “one of America’s most renowned World War II military commanders.” Zionist gratitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The reference to Holocaust denial seems very anachronistic. Zionists were far too busy with immediate rescue and immigration matters and American Jews were probably as likely to be feeling guilt about failure to do more about German killing of Jews than revving up what came to be seen as the "Holocaust industry" by some from the 50s on. And would anyone suggest that the Soviet Union would bother about a reactionary American general heard by one of their spies to say that when he got home he wasn't going to shut up if all those Jews around the Democrat presidents started whining as if Jews were the great victims?
  20. @Avery
    {Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union}

    If Patton thought Red Army was weakened at the end of WW2, he was delusional. The Red Army was a steamroller towards the end of WW2. It had about 12 million men under arms, with seemingly inexhaustible reserves. Production of tanks, airplanes, armaments was at a peak. Its generals and officers had defeated and crushed the Wehrmacht, the finest military force at the time. The same beaten down Wehrmacht, btw, which chased and routed well rested, well equipped American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Saved only by the US Air Force (...no Luftwaffe left by that time).

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.
    Which btw did stop Stalin. Not from doing anything in Europe, but in Asia Minor.

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.
    When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

    The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

    “Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan’s surrender, but as a message to Stalin.”
    That is a very well grounded belief – actually, the only plausible explanation to the war crime.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
    japan was already defeated when we nuked 2 civilian cities. in fact, japan had sued for peace before the bombings. i believe japan wanted to keep its emperor to which america declined. total unconditional surrender was demanded.
    indeed, the u.s. not only wanted to show the soviet union our unrivaled power, but the whole world. i also think 2 different types of bombs were dropped - uranium & plutonium. further, the the attack was a method to study the effects of each nuclear weapon.
    didn't general curtis lemay comment that americans would be convicted of war crimes had we lost the war?
    btw, with the establishment of rules to fight wars, war becomes aligned with a sporting match. rules make war more likely and seeks to make war seem to be less barbaric and more humane.
    but, nobody plays by the rules anyway.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    My father fought in the Pacific and when the war ended was preparing for the invasion of Japan. He might very likely have died had that occurred. After Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc. the USA was preparing for a horrifically costly invasion. One preparation was a massive order for Purple Hearts, the stock of which is still being used up as a result of the USA's many military misadventures since WW II.

    The strategy of massive aerial bombardment with incendiaries -- which on some nights had caused more casualties than occurred at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki -- had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender. Neither had the gradually tightening noose around the home islands whose inevitable conclusion was a bloody invasion. Something more drastic was required and the atom bomb was the available tool. Even then it took two demonstrations of the weapon before the Japanese finally conceded defeat.

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely -- or indeed at all -- as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?
    , @Jacques Sheete
    It was a war crime and several top brass said as much shortly after.

    As for the concept that Japan was beaten before the bombs were dropped, a good case could be made that Japan was beaten before the attack on Pearl. Heck, the Japanese military and economy were so weak that they were having trouble controlling their colony, Manchukuo. The attack on Pearl was nothing more than a desperate attempt to buy time, and the bombs were ineffably criminal.

    Also, what a lot of folks don't know is that the Soviets were given a lot of technology and material for nukes through the Lend Lease program in addition to that which they stole.

    An army officer, Major Jordan wrote about it.
  21. @Carlton Meyer
    Patton's death is rare case where our OSS/CIA may have done some good.

    Mr. Unz, please review a much more important book about WWII--Day of Deceit

    Here are clues to the canoes he upset after he documented Roosevelt's plan to sucker Americans into WWII:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Deceit

    The author is a former US Navy officer who served in the Pacific during WWII, and a retired reporter from the Oakland Tribune. Our government still keeps many related documents classified! After his book was published, they removed several documents from the National Archives! Why?

    A book written by John Toland back in the 80′s “Infamy,” dealt with the deceit behind Pearl Harbor and does a better job than Stinnett does.

    Read More
  22. @Anonymous
    Patton was a virulent anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html

    As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind.

    One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

    “Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.

    “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.”

    Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch.

    Under Patton, Nazis prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.”
     

    Patton was neither a Nazi sympathizer (he loved France), nor an anti-Semite, virulent or otherwise. Both are post war smears of Patton, and neither were true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Curious how anti-semites are virulent and Jew communities always vibrant. LOL

    antisemitic:
    any thought or person that a Jew doesn't like

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com


    Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

    - Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
     

  23. @Anonymous
    Seems to me all but certain that Patton was assassinated. It also seems as likely as not to me that Joe McCarthy and James Forrestal were both killed while at the Bethesda Naval Hospital for similar reasons (Communism, Judaism, Soviet spies and sympathizers, leftists in high position in the US government) as Patton was silenced.

    Forrestal’s death has always caused questions because of the manner in which he supposedly jumped from a window (It would appear he was stuffed through the window from which he “fell”). McCarthy, however, died from complications of alcoholism. McCarthy’s death has never raised any questions as he was already marginalized because of his overreach.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    I don't think McCarthy overreached. The communist penetration of the USG was so extensive, and so many important people stood to be discredited if McCarthy proceeded, that those people made it their highest priority to destroy McCarthy.

    Several other intelligent and patriotic Americans pursued the same goal as McCarthy because they believed as he did. The Hollywood Ten were in fact all communists who despised their own country.

    The holy "confrontation" ending in the "have you no shame" grandstanding was a sham. Welch took McCarthy to task for revealing his associate as a communist but Welch himself had earlier revealed that very fact. But the howl that went up was over McCarthy's horrible "transgression."

    McCarthy was hated not for his overreach but for exposure of communist penetration.
    , @Rudel
    "McCarthy, however, died from complications of alcoholism."
    It's rather unlikely for alcoholism to result in death from "acute hepatitis," especially in the absence of known cirrhosis.

    "he was already marginalized because of his overreach."
    You appear to be grossly ignorant of some basic historical facts, such as the Venona decrypts. Read "Blacklisted by History," or, if that's over your head, read Ann Coulter's "Treason"-- more polemics, fewer footnotes, less dispassionate, but still gets the point across. Or even this piece, for starters:
    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-08-08.html

    If anything, McCarthy was guilty of underreach, since his main sources were FBI, and they had good intelligence on KGB agents, but very little on GRU assets. His problem was that he went a little to far up the chain when investigation Communists. Fort Monmouth had multiple Communists stationed there, who had adverse findings on investigation by local military authorities, which were then overturned by higher authorities in DC. McCarthy started to question why these local findings had been overturned, then Eisenhower got scared and instituted the unconstitutional policy that no one in the executive branch would be allowed to cooperate with subpoenas from the Senate/ Congress. The fact that Ike felt compelled to block any further investigation is hardly evidence of "overreach;" more like the opposite.
  24. I applaud the courage of Mr. Unz in confronting the terrible possibility that General Patton was murdered either by the U.S. government or with its tacit consent. His mention of the attitude of the always disgusting WAPO propagandist Richard Cohen was especially courageous.

    There is a high possibility that Patton was murdered, probably by poison while hospitalized. The automobile accident was probably staged to put him in the hospital where NKVD agents could get to him.

    Before and during World War II the U.S. government was rotten with Soviet agents and Communist sympathizers, many of them (forgive me Mr. Unz, but it is the truth) Jews. As for the OSS, Bill Donovan was foolish and naïve in his selection of personnel. The OSS was riddled with known Communists and many undetected ones. Many of these vermin slithered into the newly created CIA after the war and it took years to weed them out, though many probably retired with high honors. The silly Ivy League dolts who ran the Agency included many parlor pinks and Mr. McGoo liberals, none of whom ever understood what we were up against.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Mr. McGoo liberals
     
    Do you mind explaining that epithet?
    Was it something from that era, or something you just made up?
    Does it refer to an identifiable group?

    ---

    re the Telegraph article, closing line:

    "He was going to really open the door on a lot of things that they screwed up over there." [emphasis added]
     
    I suspect screwed up is not the right term; it was a plan.
    For example, the article mentions Patton's complaint that he was not permitted to close the Falaise Gap, which allowed Germans to escape what had been planned as an encirclement.

    The same thing happened re Mark Clark taking Rome: a plan had been coordinated with the British to have combined forces, US and British, take Rome, and encircle the Germans.

    It was a plan.
    Just like the plan whereby FDR instructed Mark Clark to steal a march on the British, as Andrew Buchanan hypothesized ---

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii&start=2632
  25. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Evidently, this whole Patton’s assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes. Patton WAS NOT known to public in Europe prior to the famous movie with genius of an actor, George C. Scott, in it. The first page of Ladislas Farago’s study:

    https://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Patton-Ladislas-Farago/dp/B004THUILG/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471870883&sr=1-9

    asks immediately–how this figure (Patton) could get a movie before Zhukov, Montgomery or Rommel. That was the question German public was asking in 1970. Patton’s assassination is from the same field as him planning Cobra (in reality–Bradley’s work), or Patton being something of a special genius for warfare, when in reality he never fought the best of Wehrmacht at the top of their game. Yet, decades pass by and not a movie about such notable US military leaders like Omar Bradly, Ike, let alone true military genius George C. Marshal–too boring, too conventional. The whole of notion of “fighting Russians” in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Evidently, this whole Patton’s assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes...The whole of notion of “fighting Russians” in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.
     
    Well, I'm not a military expert on late WWII, but Patton's repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended. Therefore, he thought the Russians would have little chance of fighting more than a few weeks against America's massively-supplied military. Wasn't there some famous strategist who emphasized that while amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics? I can't say whether Patton's opinion was at all correct, but that's what he was arguing to everyone.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton's statements in 1945, it seemed like he'd half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America's most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.

    I really don't feel that "motive" is the weak point of the assassination hypothesis...
  26. I’ve known all my life that he was murdered. My dad was an MP at the scene of the “crash.” Patton was dead on the ground on site and my dad was threatened and forbidden to file the routine report.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Except that he wasn't dead on the ground. He was taken to hospital, discharged and later died from an embolism. Could daddy have been making up exciting stories?
    , @Anonymous
    You and I were not there, however, I was stationed at Patton Barracks afterward. The Stars and Stripes newspaper was there, and I read Patton WAS alive ... the hospitalmen from the 3rd hospital put him on a stretcher and into an ambulance, rushing him to the hospital not more than 3 or4 miles away. There was no doctor present. It was determined later that the movement of Patton out of his car and onto the stretcher exacerbated his neck injury. Extraordinary attempts to correct his broken neck were tried (and failed) even hooks below his cheekbones to pull/keep his head in position. His wife was flown over to be at his side. He lived for several weeks until he passed away. A plaque in the hospital commemorates the room where he died. He is buried at his request with "his" men at the cemetery in Luxembourg. While his peers and high administration officials feared him and his views, he was NOT assassinated.
  27. @Avery
    {Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union}

    If Patton thought Red Army was weakened at the end of WW2, he was delusional. The Red Army was a steamroller towards the end of WW2. It had about 12 million men under arms, with seemingly inexhaustible reserves. Production of tanks, airplanes, armaments was at a peak. Its generals and officers had defeated and crushed the Wehrmacht, the finest military force at the time. The same beaten down Wehrmacht, btw, which chased and routed well rested, well equipped American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Saved only by the US Air Force (...no Luftwaffe left by that time).

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.
    Which btw did stop Stalin. Not from doing anything in Europe, but in Asia Minor.

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.
    When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

    The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

    Yes,the Soviets would have run roughshod over the west,and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces,but probably not enough for victory.
    Plus the war weary drafted American troops wanted to just go home,and there would have been mutiny over an escalation into fighting the SU for how long?
    And Patton,a great fighting general,was an upper crust right wing elitist,and as the SU eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings,the lack of conflict was good,as no one had to die for nothing,as today’s idiotic stupidity reveals.
    Yankee come home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces
     
    Again--get the facts straight. Red Air Force by the end of WW II was largest tactical-operational AF in history.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    I agree, but it was criminal to cede, in essence, half of Germany and all of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. The world would be a very different, and more prosperous and peaceful, place
    , @JamesG
    Having lived through WWII as a young civilian teenager, I remember something seldom mentioned in today's press: some American troops in Europe rioted over "delays" in their repatriation after the end of hostilities. Also, there were prominent American officials publicly demanding their speedy return.

    I don't know about Patton but I've always believed those riots and the drum-beating were influenced by American communists who knew Stalin wanted a free hand in Soviet-occupied Europe.
    , @guest
    Eventually, yes, after 50 or so years of Cold War.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    only our air power would have made a dent in their forces

     

    LOL. And what a "dent" that would be. Germans could only move at night with shuttered headlights. Tanks were immobilized because supplies and fuel could not reach the front because of air interdiction. Strategic bombings would burn entire cities. Food rations had to be reduced due to destruction of transportation infrastructure.


    Chapter 19: Battle of the Bulge
    ...
    The ground claims for the entire period of the counteroffensive (16 December 1944 -31 January 1945) advanced by Ninth Air Force aircraft and by Eighth Air Force bombers and fighters ... 11,378 motor transport, 1,161 tanks and armored vehicles, 507 locomotives, 6,266 railroad cars ...
    ...
    The combined efforts of the strategic and tactical air forces had paralyzed virtually all rail traffic west of the Rhine

     

  28. Scepticism being de rigeur I turn to what might shed light on such a surprising story. (Surprising though admittedly ruthless behaviour in 1945 shouldn’t be regarded as surprising).

    So I too Google for Wilcox Patton and indeed there is what , on the face of it, seems surprisingly little trace of the Patton murder story.

    Next question(s) then from the armchair – based on what conventional journalistic and editorial practice is when innocently trying simply to make money or careers.
    1. What coverage have other scandals disclosed 40 -70 years after the event received? Subdivided by kinds of scandals (at least sex deserves its own label) what has neen the flllow up apart from the odd book review or weekend supplement interview?
    2. How have the MSN applied their journalistic resources over the years bearing in mind that broadshheets probably boosted their investigative reporting in the 50s to 90s to compete with TV but that in the last 20 years they have been severely affected by the decline in both sales and advertising so maybe actually take their cues from social media and early morning shock jock talk back rather than initiate any controversies through journalistic value adding to a story handed to them like the contents of Wilcox’s book.
    3. It can’t explain the almost complete lack of notice in America’s MSM but what might the editor of the NYT have ressonably been expected to do when the Wilcox book was drawn to his attention as it would surely have been when Wilcox wrote an article for the NY Post or some young journalist asked if he could follow up the allegations as well as review the book which a friend had just given him? Here’s one version of the conversation:
    “George Patton? Who’s he? Well of course I know who he was – the general who slapped the soldier and a raving anti-Semite but, yeah, great with tanks – I’m not sure that it’s got a lot of mileage with our readership today but it isn’t a good look for US generals to be assassinated so you go for it if you can get anyone to talk. Start with Wilcocks and see if you can get him to put you on to people who will talk. And see if there’s anyone who claims it’s all bullshit and seems to have done his homework. You can skip law enforcement unless you find something new for them.”

    So a journalist gives up after total blanks from FBI, Department of Justice and Wilcox just telling him to read the book and look for old OSS people to talk to. He asks some German journalists to see if there might be any archives of any kind which shed light on what investigators found but that’s another blank. He tries the Patton family and even Ike’s family but again nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    All that was written before the other comments. So I add that the prevalence of rumours of murder noted by several commenters would have militated against MSM interest.
    , @Anonymous

    What coverage have other scandals disclosed 40 -70 years after the event received?
     
    knock yourself out

    "The Secret War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II"

    and

    Aldo Icardi, a Maitland lawyer, disputed repeated accusations that he had murdered his commanding officer while behind enemy lines in Italy.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1986-09-21/news/0250400027_1_icardi-oss-italian-partisans
    , @anarchyst
    The American press of the last 80 years, or so, has always had a "soft spot" for communism. It would not surprise me that, even if the truth were known, the American press would not touch it with a ten-foot pole.
    It was easy to see the sympathy that the American press had for the communists. All one has to do is look at Murrow, Cronkite and Murrow's "enabler" noted communist "Fred Friendly" to see how the American press has been co-opted...
  29. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @dahoit
    Yes,the Soviets would have run roughshod over the west,and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces,but probably not enough for victory.
    Plus the war weary drafted American troops wanted to just go home,and there would have been mutiny over an escalation into fighting the SU for how long?
    And Patton,a great fighting general,was an upper crust right wing elitist,and as the SU eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings,the lack of conflict was good,as no one had to die for nothing,as today's idiotic stupidity reveals.
    Yankee come home.

    and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces

    Again–get the facts straight. Red Air Force by the end of WW II was largest tactical-operational AF in history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    'Large' on paper, but also one of the worst in quality to ever exist.

    Much better now, however.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    What wasn't straight about his facts? Or did you feel compelled to show off some off some little bit of knowledge you had despite it requiring that you ignore jis actual word?
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Even in 1944 Russia lost 3.3 to 1 aircraft against Germany. Presumably, lend-lease would have been cut off in a conflict, which supplied them with over half of their aviation fuel.
  30. @TheDaughter
    I've known all my life that he was murdered. My dad was an MP at the scene of the "crash." Patton was dead on the ground on site and my dad was threatened and forbidden to file the routine report.

    Except that he wasn’t dead on the ground. He was taken to hospital, discharged and later died from an embolism. Could daddy have been making up exciting stories?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheDaughter
    Dear Oz---From what reliable source did you get that version? The official story--and the one reported in the "Stars and Stripes" much to my dad's surprise--is that Patton died in the hospital twelve days after the "accident." But see, the point of this article is that the evidence points away from the official story. I just happen to know one of the eye witnesses. You can believe who you want.
  31. Ron says:

    Not being someone much drawn to conspiracy-mongering, the lurid claim seemed totally outlandish, …

    “Conspiracies” are the norm and are proven everyday in countless courts of law all around the world.

    Read More
  32. The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. The United States and Britain helped.

    The United States suffered about 200,000 fatalities in combat against the Nazis. The Soviet Union lost around 27,000,000 dead, military and civilian. They deserve respect. They don’t get any in this article.

    Of course there were many Soviet sympathizers in the U.S. government in 1945. We were allies.

    Did Patton want to betray an ally? If he did, I don’t give a damn about how he died.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Outwest
    The Soviets were, if anything, less respectful of human rights than the Germans –not meaning to speak up for either, just comparing. A captured Soviet soldier that escaped went to the Gulag as being contaminated.

    Also, you may want to check the tremendous amount of strategic war materials the U.S. shipped to the Soviets. Aluminum, Fuel TRUCKS and finished war equipment. P-39s and P-40 held the line against the Luftwaffe until the Soviets could utilize the raw materials for their own planes and other equipment.

    A bit of coordination with Japan and Germany would have won easily. No U.S. and it’s a tossup.
    , @mr. meener
    so I guess you are mad that Patton figured out we fought WWII to save the communists the jewish invention . Patton saw to late that we fought the wrong people. all these communist groupies here saying the soviets defeated the Germans when any one knows their supply lines were to long and it was the winter that did it. The communists could have never beaten a supplied German army . our communist loving govt sent millions of tons of steel to russia being they had allies in roosevelt administration that was loaded with bolshevik jews. Patton said the Russians lived off the land coming down and there was nothing left for them if they were to be pushed back
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    The United States suffered about 200,000 fatalities in combat against the Nazis. The Soviet Union lost around 27,000,000 dead, military and civilian.

     

    Perhaps a better metric of contribution to defeating an enemy is casualties inflicted on the enemy and not casualties sufffered.
    , @Hibernian
    Patton's "betrayal" of such an "ally" as the USSR vs. FDR and his "intellectual" friends' betrayal of the US? Not even a close question.
  33. @Anonymous
    Patton was a virulent anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html

    As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind.

    One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

    “Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.

    “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.”

    Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch.

    Under Patton, Nazis prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.”
     

    so someone who had brains and the courage to stand up. what did he get in return? assassination attempts and a final successful one.

    I am just glad that in the internet + smartphone age, assassinations are no longer possible.

    to be honest, america reaped the benefits of 2 world wars waiting till the very end to join both. patton was jeopardizing all of it. why would the people in control allow it :( I am surprised patton didn’t take better measures to protect himself. he was up against people who started and finished 2 world wars just for the very power(national interest) he tried to negate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "waiting till the very end to join both"

    We only waited a couple of years to join the second, and were there for the majority of it. Plus, we lost like half a million men and God knows how much money.
    , @Eileen Kuch
    You're absolutely right. US Army Gen. George S. Patton was the one who had the brains and courage to stand up to both Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Soviets and paid the ultimate price. He had informed a friend (most likely, British Gen. Bernard Montgomery, who came to the same conclusions Patton had) that "We had fought the wrong enemy".
    Patton never trusted Ike and disdained him as a "desk jockey", and his disdain grew even more intense when he learned that Ike had flown to Moscow on "Uncle Joe" Stalin's invitation and received a medal from his (Ike's) friend, Marshal Georgi Zukhov .. all this, while some 2 million German females aged 8-80 were being gang-raped under "Uncle Joe's" orders. He was outspoken against the brutal conditions the 1-2 million German POW's were forced to suffer under, by order of Ike. The camps had no shelters and these prisoners were subjected to unsanitary conditions and eventually died from starvation, disease and exposure.
    Yes, indeed, the US reaped the benefits of two World Wars, having waited until near the end to join both .. and Patton was jeopardizing it all.
    Patton most likely didn't take measures to defend himself, because he never thought that he'd be targeted for elimination, aka assassination. As you said, he was up against people who started and finished two World Wars, just for the power (national interest) he tried to negate. These people feared him enough to have him bumped off.
  34. @Quartermaster
    Patton was neither a Nazi sympathizer (he loved France), nor an anti-Semite, virulent or otherwise. Both are post war smears of Patton, and neither were true.

    Curious how anti-semites are virulent and Jew communities always vibrant. LOL

    antisemitic:
    any thought or person that a Jew doesn’t like

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    - Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    And Gerard Menuhin makes a great point: if all Jews behaved like the Menuhins, anti-Semitism would not exist! It is collective Jewish behavior, not their bloodline, that makes them despised among the nations. This point was made quite candidly by Bernard Lazare, the Jewish, pioneer Zionist author of "Antisemtism: Its History and Causes".
    , @Boris
    This is an example of why you don't read all the comments here at Unz. Unless you're looking for idiots to mock.
  35. @Anonymous
    Patton was a virulent anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html

    As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind.

    One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

    “Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.

    “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.”

    Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch.

    Under Patton, Nazis prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.”
     

    Quoting THE JEW YORK TIMES as a reliable source is just like believing that the Grand Mufti of Palestine twisted Hitler’s arms to carry-out genocide of non-Zionist European Jews.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/

    Read More
  36. @Andrei Martyanov

    and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces
     
    Again--get the facts straight. Red Air Force by the end of WW II was largest tactical-operational AF in history.

    ‘Large’ on paper, but also one of the worst in quality to ever exist.

    Much better now, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Yeah, poor in quality, to be sure. The far superior Luftwaffe really kicked the crap out of the Red Air Force back in WWII!!

    Oh, wait...
  37. Gen George Patton, commander of the US Third Army and governor of a greater part of US occupied Germany is accused by the organized Jewry for slapping and berating two Jewish soldiers, Pvt. Charles H. Kuhl and Pvt. Paul Bennett in August 1943 in Sicily. Patton also called them cowards. Patton was ordered to apologize to the soldiers in public by the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Gen. David (Ike) Eisenhower, who is accused of being a crypto-Jew

    Several writers have claimed that Gen. Patton was killed by Jews as part of Jewish vengeance for insulting Jewish soldiers.

    Most of the Jews swarming over Germany immediately after the war came from Poland and Russia, and Patton found their personal habits shockingly uncivilized. Patton’s initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower’s insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part: “This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General. The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it.”

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/11/24/brawl-over-gen-patton-at-museum-of-jewish-heritage/

    Read More
  38. @annamaria
    " The methodology sort of does seem to be reminiscent of the NKVD/ KGB, which did arrange similar “accidents” and had a long history of killing inconvenient generals." - And this is why the US government and CIA-controlled media decided to black out the fact of assassination of George S. Patton, "one of America’s most renowned World War II military commanders?" Considering the nastiness of zionists -- and their proven predilection for assassinating "undesirables" (flotilla anybody?) -- one cannot exclude the influence of zionists on the blackout. As it was said above, Patton "was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result." You see, his sin against Jews was so grave that it did not matter that Patton was "one of America’s most renowned World War II military commanders." Zionist gratitude.

    The reference to Holocaust denial seems very anachronistic. Zionists were far too busy with immediate rescue and immigration matters and American Jews were probably as likely to be feeling guilt about failure to do more about German killing of Jews than revving up what came to be seen as the “Holocaust industry” by some from the 50s on. And would anyone suggest that the Soviet Union would bother about a reactionary American general heard by one of their spies to say that when he got home he wasn’t going to shut up if all those Jews around the Democrat presidents started whining as if Jews were the great victims?

    Read More
  39. @dahoit
    Yes,the Soviets would have run roughshod over the west,and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces,but probably not enough for victory.
    Plus the war weary drafted American troops wanted to just go home,and there would have been mutiny over an escalation into fighting the SU for how long?
    And Patton,a great fighting general,was an upper crust right wing elitist,and as the SU eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings,the lack of conflict was good,as no one had to die for nothing,as today's idiotic stupidity reveals.
    Yankee come home.

    I agree, but it was criminal to cede, in essence, half of Germany and all of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. The world would be a very different, and more prosperous and peaceful, place

    Read More
  40. @EvolutionistX
    I remember hearing that Patton was assassinated from a relative, who claimed to have heard it from someone in the military. Sorry I'm short on details; I've genuinely forgotten most of the conversation, as it happened some time ago. Whether this was a genuine source, or someone was just relaying the information from one of these books, I don't know, but at least someone was paying attention.

    It may have been because that story was goung round in just that way that MSM editors didn’t pay much attention. On the one hand your forgetting the details proved that it wasn’t a great piece of news for boosting circulation. On other they would say it was just typical barrack room/lower deck scuttlebutt. There are a lot of fabulists about.

    Read More
  41. @dahoit
    Yes,the Soviets would have run roughshod over the west,and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces,but probably not enough for victory.
    Plus the war weary drafted American troops wanted to just go home,and there would have been mutiny over an escalation into fighting the SU for how long?
    And Patton,a great fighting general,was an upper crust right wing elitist,and as the SU eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings,the lack of conflict was good,as no one had to die for nothing,as today's idiotic stupidity reveals.
    Yankee come home.

    Having lived through WWII as a young civilian teenager, I remember something seldom mentioned in today’s press: some American troops in Europe rioted over “delays” in their repatriation after the end of hostilities. Also, there were prominent American officials publicly demanding their speedy return.

    I don’t know about Patton but I’ve always believed those riots and the drum-beating were influenced by American communists who knew Stalin wanted a free hand in Soviet-occupied Europe.

    Read More
  42. @annamaria
    "Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan’s surrender, but as a message to Stalin."
    That is a very well grounded belief - actually, the only plausible explanation to the war crime.

    japan was already defeated when we nuked 2 civilian cities. in fact, japan had sued for peace before the bombings. i believe japan wanted to keep its emperor to which america declined. total unconditional surrender was demanded.
    indeed, the u.s. not only wanted to show the soviet union our unrivaled power, but the whole world. i also think 2 different types of bombs were dropped – uranium & plutonium. further, the the attack was a method to study the effects of each nuclear weapon.
    didn’t general curtis lemay comment that americans would be convicted of war crimes had we lost the war?
    btw, with the establishment of rules to fight wars, war becomes aligned with a sporting match. rules make war more likely and seeks to make war seem to be less barbaric and more humane.
    but, nobody plays by the rules anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Defeated, but how close to surrenderimg before the first bomb was dropped?
    , @Carroll Price
    As everyone should know by now, victors record their version of wars as documented fact while portraying losers as villains and war criminals. Indeed, General Curtis Lemay stated that had the Allies lost the war, he and several other US and British officers would have been tried as war criminals. A fact that would surely not be denied by any objective student of history associated with the WW 2. The fire bombings and nuclear bombings carried out by Allies forces on Japanese and German cities filled with civilians, qualify as nothing less than unimaginable war crimes.
  43. @ic1000
    Intrigued by Mr Unz' post, I looked for writing that contests Wilcox's premise. Via an amazon.com review, I found the webpage The Death of General George S. Patton by Peter Hendrikx. It offers a point-by-point refutation of the elements of the "murder" argument, favoring "accident."

    * Hendrikx appears to be a sober and well-regarded Dutch author, whose main interest is Operation Market Garden.

    * The linked page contests many theories rather than focusing on Wilcox's, making for an awkward read.

    * Most seriously, Hendrikx doesn't offer links or footnotes, diminishing the value of his essay.

    Perhaps readers will post links to other books or websites that subject "Target: Patton" to careful scrutiny.

    I didn’t find the rebuttal very convincing, particularly since the author dismisses out of hand the last book written by Ladislaw Farrago. Farrago is recognized as the premier biographer of Patton and in his last book he leans towards the idea that Patton’s death was the result of a series of assassination attempts. The cite fails utterly to address this latter point: In the months before Patton’s death an airplane and a ground vehicle in which he was traveling were both attacked under very mysterious circumstances which have never been investigated or explained.

    Read More
  44. It is August 2016. WWII is 7o years in the past. More than two generations.

    Okay, Ron et al, let’s assume Patton was assassinated.

    Now what?

    To quote our dear, sick President-For-Life-To-Be, “at this point, what difference does it make?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    It is August 2016. WWII is 7o years in the past. More than two generations.

    Okay, Ron et al, let’s assume Patton was assassinated.

    Now what?

    To quote our dear, sick President-For-Life-To-Be, “at this point, what difference does it make?”
     
    That's absolutely correct, which is why so much of my focus is on the MSM aspects of the matter.

    Let's suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward. Then, when a massively researched and persuasive book was published in 2008 presenting a very strong case, it was still totally ignored by the entire MSM and none of the facts were ever allowed into the 15,000 word Wikipedia entry on Patton.

    Shouldn't that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant "conspiracy theories" because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM? And if Wikipedia seems to have entirely covered up Patton's likely assassination, how can we trust it about anything else, including much more current disputes?
    , @DDearborn
    Hmmm

    You raise a point here about the lack of relevancy of Patton's murder in the context of modern affairs. The very same point can be made regarding the Holocaust. The Holocaust is no more relevant today than Patton's murder.
  45. @Andrei Martyanov

    and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces
     
    Again--get the facts straight. Red Air Force by the end of WW II was largest tactical-operational AF in history.

    What wasn’t straight about his facts? Or did you feel compelled to show off some off some little bit of knowledge you had despite it requiring that you ignore jis actual word?

    Read More
  46. @Wizard of Oz
    Except that he wasn't dead on the ground. He was taken to hospital, discharged and later died from an embolism. Could daddy have been making up exciting stories?

    Dear Oz—From what reliable source did you get that version? The official story–and the one reported in the “Stars and Stripes” much to my dad’s surprise–is that Patton died in the hospital twelve days after the “accident.” But see, the point of this article is that the evidence points away from the official story. I just happen to know one of the eye witnesses. You can believe who you want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I thought i had got it from the article but having searched for "embolism" I'm not sure. From Wikipedia on Patton's Last Days it appears that Truman ordered him, immobilised by his cast (as well perhaps as paralysis), to be brought back to the States. He died, it was said, 12 days after the accident. There seems no reason to disbelieve that version just because a witness saw him at the accident site showing no obvious sign of life. The accident doesn't seem to have been one which, in itself, was likely to result in death so it seems unlikely to have been chosen as the way of kiliing him.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    I see you've met the Wiz, a mental-gynast of truly Olympic standard for his mind bending arguments against anything that contradicts his accepted "truth". The confirmation bias is mighty indeed in one so intellectually gifted as he himself believes himself to be. So it must be valid, see?
  47. @Lawrence Fitton
    japan was already defeated when we nuked 2 civilian cities. in fact, japan had sued for peace before the bombings. i believe japan wanted to keep its emperor to which america declined. total unconditional surrender was demanded.
    indeed, the u.s. not only wanted to show the soviet union our unrivaled power, but the whole world. i also think 2 different types of bombs were dropped - uranium & plutonium. further, the the attack was a method to study the effects of each nuclear weapon.
    didn't general curtis lemay comment that americans would be convicted of war crimes had we lost the war?
    btw, with the establishment of rules to fight wars, war becomes aligned with a sporting match. rules make war more likely and seeks to make war seem to be less barbaric and more humane.
    but, nobody plays by the rules anyway.

    Defeated, but how close to surrenderimg before the first bomb was dropped?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Japan was not offering to surrender prior to the atomic bombs. Historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa have documented that the Japanese were trying to use the Soviet Union, while it was still a neutral, as an intermediary to broker an armistice, not an unconditional surrender. The Japanese proposal was:
    - Cease fire in place.
    - Emperor stayed on the throne.
    - Japan could retain existing political structure.
    - No Allied armed forces on Japanese soil.
    - Japan withdraws to pre-war territories.
    - War crime trials of Japanese officers and officials would be conducted by Japanese courts.
  48. @annamaria
    "Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan’s surrender, but as a message to Stalin."
    That is a very well grounded belief - actually, the only plausible explanation to the war crime.

    My father fought in the Pacific and when the war ended was preparing for the invasion of Japan. He might very likely have died had that occurred. After Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc. the USA was preparing for a horrifically costly invasion. One preparation was a massive order for Purple Hearts, the stock of which is still being used up as a result of the USA’s many military misadventures since WW II.

    The strategy of massive aerial bombardment with incendiaries — which on some nights had caused more casualties than occurred at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki — had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender. Neither had the gradually tightening noose around the home islands whose inevitable conclusion was a bloody invasion. Something more drastic was required and the atom bomb was the available tool. Even then it took two demonstrations of the weapon before the Japanese finally conceded defeat.

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely — or indeed at all — as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely — or indeed at all — as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?
     
    you meant that as a joke, right?

    'cuz we all know that what is taught in USA high schools re WWII is the troof, the whole troof and nothing but the troof, so help me yahweh.
    , @bluedog
    Strange what some people do to try and prove a point no matter how invalid,one would assume seeing Japan is an island and we controlled the sea and the area around it that we would have simply sit for after all they weren't going anywhere were they? with no ships or aircraft. As for documentation read the two volume set "The Rising Sun" taken from Japans own internal records after the war,very well documented..!!!
    , @rod1963
    You're talking to rocks.

    Too many of these characters view the U.S. as the chief villain in WWII and anything that came out of the men who served in either theater as lies.
    , @Incitatus
    Welcome to Planet Nippon, sister satellite of Planet Germania!
    , @Jacques Sheete

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely — or indeed at all — as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?
     
    Well, there are many who would argue that high school is designed to brainwash compliant, non-thinking, state worshiping drones, so awareness of that concept casts doubt on your claims as well.

    I doubt your high school gym qua "history" teachers would be able to produce any sort of documentary evidence for much of what they regurgitated, so why do you make the demand of others? Heck, I doubt if many of them even would understand such a request.

    Too bad that so many never question or move beyond anything they heard in high school.
    , @Hibernian
    Mr. Sayin', you might just check out what Admiral Leahy said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    , @Steve Naidamast
    Sorry, but your analysis is quite wrong and Truman's own Pacific Air War Survey of 1947 demonstrates that. A report completed by 1100 US military officers, enlisted personnel, and and civilian analysts spent many months qualifying their research and conclusions, the last of which that the use of atomic weaponry was completely unnecessary towards the defeat of Japan.

    The 1,000,000 casualty number, which everyone today is familiar with was highly inflated as the actual number was an expected 30,000, if even that.

    The existing US naval blockade had already finished Japan in terms of being able to wage war. This too has been well documented.

    The senior most Japanese general in southern Japan (where the US was intending to invade) was interviewed after the war and he informed his interviewers that the Japanese defense forces were all starving to death. Had the US invaded, they would have rolled over his forces like a meat grinder.

    The atomic bombs were in fact used to scare off Stalin from moving into Asia. They had nothing to do with defeating Japan.

    The majority of senior US military officers as well as over 68% of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were vehemently against the use of such weapons. It was a very small group of Truman's inner circle that pushed for their use.

    There is a wealth of information available on all of this in books, documents, and articles on the Internet...
  49. @Wizard of Oz
    Scepticism being de rigeur I turn to what might shed light on such a surprising story. (Surprising though admittedly ruthless behaviour in 1945 shouldn't be regarded as surprising).

    So I too Google for Wilcox Patton and indeed there is what , on the face of it, seems surprisingly little trace of the Patton murder story.

    Next question(s) then from the armchair - based on what conventional journalistic and editorial practice is when innocently trying simply to make money or careers.
    1. What coverage have other scandals disclosed 40 -70 years after the event received? Subdivided by kinds of scandals (at least sex deserves its own label) what has neen the flllow up apart from the odd book review or weekend supplement interview?
    2. How have the MSN applied their journalistic resources over the years bearing in mind that broadshheets probably boosted their investigative reporting in the 50s to 90s to compete with TV but that in the last 20 years they have been severely affected by the decline in both sales and advertising so maybe actually take their cues from social media and early morning shock jock talk back rather than initiate any controversies through journalistic value adding to a story handed to them like the contents of Wilcox's book.
    3. It can't explain the almost complete lack of notice in America's MSM but what might the editor of the NYT have ressonably been expected to do when the Wilcox book was drawn to his attention as it would surely have been when Wilcox wrote an article for the NY Post or some young journalist asked if he could follow up the allegations as well as review the book which a friend had just given him? Here's one version of the conversation:
    "George Patton? Who's he? Well of course I know who he was - the general who slapped the soldier and a raving anti-Semite but, yeah, great with tanks - I'm not sure that it's got a lot of mileage with our readership today but it isn't a good look for US generals to be assassinated so you go for it if you can get anyone to talk. Start with Wilcocks and see if you can get him to put you on to people who will talk. And see if there's anyone who claims it's all bullshit and seems to have done his homework. You can skip law enforcement unless you find something new for them."

    So a journalist gives up after total blanks from FBI, Department of Justice and Wilcox just telling him to read the book and look for old OSS people to talk to. He asks some German journalists to see if there might be any archives of any kind which shed light on what investigators found but that's another blank. He tries the Patton family and even Ike's family but again nothing.

    All that was written before the other comments. So I add that the prevalence of rumours of murder noted by several commenters would have militated against MSM interest.

    Read More
  50. Donovan had been fired and the OSS abolished well before Patton’s Dec. 8 accident. The casual smearing of Donovan, who won the congressional medal of honor for combat heroism in World War I, made significant contributions to US victory in World War II, and was a resolute anti-communist at the start of the Cold War, is offensive, IMHO. But then much as I disagree with Sen. John McCain’s hawkishness, I don’t like your smearing of him, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You seem to have put your finger on a major weakness of the Wilcox version because the article seems to be clear that Donovan was involved in the murder.
    , @Ron Unz

    Donovan had been fired and the OSS abolished well before Patton’s Dec. 8 accident.
     
    Yes. Wilcox describes at considerable length how Donovan was desperately attempting to maintain his OSS intelligence empire under Truman during early/mid-1945, and it was apparently around then that the alleged plans to eliminate Patton were put into motion. Indeed, Patton's first strange brush with death actually took place before the European war had even ended, in late April 1945.

    While I obviously can't be absolutely sure whether Wilcox's hypothesis is correct, he did spend ten years thoroughly researching his book, and I very much doubt that any such totally obvious flaws would have escaped his attention.

    There actually seems a great deal of evidence that Donovan originally began as something of a British agent, then may have possibly transferred his partial loyalties to Russia due to the powerful network of Communist agents near the top of the Roosevelt Administration during much of WWII.
    , @Hibernian
    Senator McCain's service record prior to his arrival in Vietnam would've gotten an officer who wasn't an Admiral's son dismissed from the service.
  51. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Chris Bridges
    I applaud the courage of Mr. Unz in confronting the terrible possibility that General Patton was murdered either by the U.S. government or with its tacit consent. His mention of the attitude of the always disgusting WAPO propagandist Richard Cohen was especially courageous.

    There is a high possibility that Patton was murdered, probably by poison while hospitalized. The automobile accident was probably staged to put him in the hospital where NKVD agents could get to him.

    Before and during World War II the U.S. government was rotten with Soviet agents and Communist sympathizers, many of them (forgive me Mr. Unz, but it is the truth) Jews. As for the OSS, Bill Donovan was foolish and naïve in his selection of personnel. The OSS was riddled with known Communists and many undetected ones. Many of these vermin slithered into the newly created CIA after the war and it took years to weed them out, though many probably retired with high honors. The silly Ivy League dolts who ran the Agency included many parlor pinks and Mr. McGoo liberals, none of whom ever understood what we were up against.

    Mr. McGoo liberals

    Do you mind explaining that epithet?
    Was it something from that era, or something you just made up?
    Does it refer to an identifiable group?

    re the Telegraph article, closing line:

    “He was going to really open the door on a lot of things that they screwed up over there.” [emphasis added]

    I suspect screwed up is not the right term; it was a plan.
    For example, the article mentions Patton’s complaint that he was not permitted to close the Falaise Gap, which allowed Germans to escape what had been planned as an encirclement.

    The same thing happened re Mark Clark taking Rome: a plan had been coordinated with the British to have combined forces, US and British, take Rome, and encircle the Germans.

    It was a plan.
    Just like the plan whereby FDR instructed Mark Clark to steal a march on the British, as Andrew Buchanan hypothesized —

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii&start=2632

    Read More
  52. @Avery
    {Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union}

    If Patton thought Red Army was weakened at the end of WW2, he was delusional. The Red Army was a steamroller towards the end of WW2. It had about 12 million men under arms, with seemingly inexhaustible reserves. Production of tanks, airplanes, armaments was at a peak. Its generals and officers had defeated and crushed the Wehrmacht, the finest military force at the time. The same beaten down Wehrmacht, btw, which chased and routed well rested, well equipped American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Saved only by the US Air Force (...no Luftwaffe left by that time).

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.
    Which btw did stop Stalin. Not from doing anything in Europe, but in Asia Minor.

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.
    When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

    The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

    The Russian Army in the East had already launched sea-borne invasions of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands as well as wiping out the Japanese Kwantung army in Manchuria, taking half of Korea ( as per an agreement with the USA ) and were in preparation for an invasion of Hokkaido Island. There were no Japanese military assets remaining on Hokkaido to impede the Russians. The Russians accomplished all this in the space of 11 days. The 9th to the 20th of August 1945.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    And they (Soviets) took 800,000 Japanese POW's out of which 600,000 survived Gulags. I bring this up because it never ceases to amaze me that Americans managed to kill circa 1 million Japanese soldiers during Pacific campaign and only took circa 50,000 POW's. Supposedly towards the end of war American GI's were incentivized with ice cream to bring live Japanese soldiers instead of killing them because the statistics (100 dead : 1 alive) did not look good to higher ups.
  53. I’m shocked that you found that Bill O’Reilly wasn’t very informative as a historian. Next you’re going to tell me that he doesn’t speak Ancient Greek and his book Killing Jesus did not make a scholarly contribution.

    Read More
  54. @TheDaughter
    Dear Oz---From what reliable source did you get that version? The official story--and the one reported in the "Stars and Stripes" much to my dad's surprise--is that Patton died in the hospital twelve days after the "accident." But see, the point of this article is that the evidence points away from the official story. I just happen to know one of the eye witnesses. You can believe who you want.

    I thought i had got it from the article but having searched for “embolism” I’m not sure. From Wikipedia on Patton’s Last Days it appears that Truman ordered him, immobilised by his cast (as well perhaps as paralysis), to be brought back to the States. He died, it was said, 12 days after the accident. There seems no reason to disbelieve that version just because a witness saw him at the accident site showing no obvious sign of life. The accident doesn’t seem to have been one which, in itself, was likely to result in death so it seems unlikely to have been chosen as the way of kiliing him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    The government probably has the ability to fake a lot of things, but to pretend that a dead man is alive for twelve days seems like a pretty difficult one. One or two days, maybe. But twelve days?
    , @TheDaughter
    Well that's because there was no accident. He was killed by the blow of a blunt instrument to the back of his head.
  55. @Planet Albany
    Donovan had been fired and the OSS abolished well before Patton's Dec. 8 accident. The casual smearing of Donovan, who won the congressional medal of honor for combat heroism in World War I, made significant contributions to US victory in World War II, and was a resolute anti-communist at the start of the Cold War, is offensive, IMHO. But then much as I disagree with Sen. John McCain's hawkishness, I don't like your smearing of him, either.

    You seem to have put your finger on a major weakness of the Wilcox version because the article seems to be clear that Donovan was involved in the murder.

    Read More
  56. @Astuteobservor II
    so someone who had brains and the courage to stand up. what did he get in return? assassination attempts and a final successful one.

    I am just glad that in the internet + smartphone age, assassinations are no longer possible.

    to be honest, america reaped the benefits of 2 world wars waiting till the very end to join both. patton was jeopardizing all of it. why would the people in control allow it :( I am surprised patton didn't take better measures to protect himself. he was up against people who started and finished 2 world wars just for the very power(national interest) he tried to negate.

    “waiting till the very end to join both”

    We only waited a couple of years to join the second, and were there for the majority of it. Plus, we lost like half a million men and God knows how much money.

    Read More
  57. @Wizard of Oz
    Defeated, but how close to surrenderimg before the first bomb was dropped?

    Japan was not offering to surrender prior to the atomic bombs. Historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa have documented that the Japanese were trying to use the Soviet Union, while it was still a neutral, as an intermediary to broker an armistice, not an unconditional surrender. The Japanese proposal was:
    - Cease fire in place.
    - Emperor stayed on the throne.
    - Japan could retain existing political structure.
    - No Allied armed forces on Japanese soil.
    - Japan withdraws to pre-war territories.
    - War crime trials of Japanese officers and officials would be conducted by Japanese courts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    You seem to be under the delusion that the only way to surrender is unconditionally. The Japanese were trying to surrender. The U.S. wouldn't accept terms, which is why they resorted to the A-bomb. It certainly wasn't because mainland Japan had to be invaded and millions would've been killed, as our propaganda would have you believe. How did they know we weren't going to Morgenthau them? That's why they fought on.

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there's no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.
    , @Anonymous
    Read "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by Herbert Hoover. (https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betrayed-Herbert-Hoovers-Aftermath/dp/0817912347) It is but only one of others that document the Japanese attempts at surrendering. Hoover makes the startling claim that the Japanese prince (IIRC) made the unprecedented offer to meet outside of Japan soil.

    Hoover made a lousy president but as a historian and document gatherer he is to be held in extremely high regards. Hoover's library began when Hoover began to collect all the documents he could get his hands on the day after Pearl Harbor. His, Hoover's, prior works as an engineer and assistance to Europe after WW1 made him friends in high places. The Poland ambassador to these uSA gave Hoover all the documents of the Polish embassy to Hoover.

    It is a long book but worth reading.
    , @Hibernian
    Such an armistice would have been far more honorable than frying women, children, and the elderly.
  58. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    My father fought in the Pacific and when the war ended was preparing for the invasion of Japan. He might very likely have died had that occurred. After Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc. the USA was preparing for a horrifically costly invasion. One preparation was a massive order for Purple Hearts, the stock of which is still being used up as a result of the USA's many military misadventures since WW II.

    The strategy of massive aerial bombardment with incendiaries -- which on some nights had caused more casualties than occurred at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki -- had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender. Neither had the gradually tightening noose around the home islands whose inevitable conclusion was a bloody invasion. Something more drastic was required and the atom bomb was the available tool. Even then it took two demonstrations of the weapon before the Japanese finally conceded defeat.

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely -- or indeed at all -- as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely — or indeed at all — as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    you meant that as a joke, right?

    ‘cuz we all know that what is taught in USA high schools re WWII is the troof, the whole troof and nothing but the troof, so help me yahweh.

    Read More
  59. @Anonymous
    Seems to me all but certain that Patton was assassinated. It also seems as likely as not to me that Joe McCarthy and James Forrestal were both killed while at the Bethesda Naval Hospital for similar reasons (Communism, Judaism, Soviet spies and sympathizers, leftists in high position in the US government) as Patton was silenced.

    McCarthy had already been humiliated; he wouldn’t have been worth the trouble. Actually, had he lived and got back in the news it’d probably have been win-win. He either embarrasses himself further (right or wrong, doesn’t matter, because they beat him the first time around when he was right and they were wrong, mostly) or he hits on more unmentionable truths and they say, “Oh, that crazy/mean old McCarthy!”

    Read More
  60. @Wally
    'Large' on paper, but also one of the worst in quality to ever exist.

    Much better now, however.

    Yeah, poor in quality, to be sure. The far superior Luftwaffe really kicked the crap out of the Red Air Force back in WWII!!

    Oh, wait…

    Read More
  61. @Alfa158
    Japan was not offering to surrender prior to the atomic bombs. Historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa have documented that the Japanese were trying to use the Soviet Union, while it was still a neutral, as an intermediary to broker an armistice, not an unconditional surrender. The Japanese proposal was:
    - Cease fire in place.
    - Emperor stayed on the throne.
    - Japan could retain existing political structure.
    - No Allied armed forces on Japanese soil.
    - Japan withdraws to pre-war territories.
    - War crime trials of Japanese officers and officials would be conducted by Japanese courts.

    You seem to be under the delusion that the only way to surrender is unconditionally. The Japanese were trying to surrender. The U.S. wouldn’t accept terms, which is why they resorted to the A-bomb. It certainly wasn’t because mainland Japan had to be invaded and millions would’ve been killed, as our propaganda would have you believe. How did they know we weren’t going to Morgenthau them? That’s why they fought on.

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    How did they know we weren’t going to Morgenthau them? That’s why they fought on.
     
    Yup.

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous
     
    Very much so. Once you demand unconditional surrender your enemy is faced with a war for survival and he will fight harder and more fiercely and for a lot longer. The Allied insistence on unconditional surrender caused an enormous number of unnecessary deaths on all sides. Demanding unconditional surrender is stupid and barbaric.
    , @Incitatus
    “Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time.”

    Like Versailles 1919? We all know how that worked out, and so did Truman.
    , @aeolius
    One of the worst faults of the "Politically-Correct" folks is using their own (seriously flawed) notions of morality to earlier times and places. Without any regard for trying to understand the world as it was at that time. Add to that that there is most often in their understanding only one thing going on at a time. A one-string violin. Instead of the massive cross-currents of a thousand agendas that is always present in any major political action.
    You present an alternative which is reasonable from a 21st Century US position. But what does that have to do with what Truman was faced with.
    Purely intellectually we must understand that your idea that "wars used to be negotiated all the time" is probably wrong. In fact this Wilsonian fantasy was tried in 1918 with the result that Germany was able to quickly return as a major army. Do you think the 1944 mindset was to repeat Wilsonian intellectual fantasy? Unconditional surrender was the goal in Europe.
    Why should this have been not imposed on Japan. Keeping the Emperor was no little concession. Were not the Japanese as sure of their Ubermensch status as were the Germans and the Italians? For Japan this special status was bestowed on them via the Emperor. Where was no gain for the Allies to allow him to maintain his God-like status?
    Finally maybe Japan was on its last legs. Or maybe it would have taken tens of thousands of US lives to take the Islands. Why should America not take Japanese lives and save our own by using the bomb.
    P-C folks are very easy to have others do their dirty work while they sit on the sidelines and critic them. But how many of them say would patrol a ghetto neighborhood at night. Or join the military?
  62. @Simon in London
    "the freest and most scandal-mongering media in the world"

    From a British perspective the US media has always seemed incredibly tame and conformist. Of course our media class is mostly left-liberal too, but even before the current Trump era the slavish devotion of the US media to the Powers That Be was very notable.

    “the freest and most scandal-mongering media in the world”

    From a British perspective the US media has always seemed incredibly tame and conformist.

    Actually, I was being a bit sarcastic, but apparently not doing a good enough job at it…

    Read More
  63. @Wizard of Oz
    I thought i had got it from the article but having searched for "embolism" I'm not sure. From Wikipedia on Patton's Last Days it appears that Truman ordered him, immobilised by his cast (as well perhaps as paralysis), to be brought back to the States. He died, it was said, 12 days after the accident. There seems no reason to disbelieve that version just because a witness saw him at the accident site showing no obvious sign of life. The accident doesn't seem to have been one which, in itself, was likely to result in death so it seems unlikely to have been chosen as the way of kiliing him.

    The government probably has the ability to fake a lot of things, but to pretend that a dead man is alive for twelve days seems like a pretty difficult one. One or two days, maybe. But twelve days?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheDaughter
    Keep in mind this was 1945. They had to get the wife there (whose death was also suspicious), and consider that if you want someone dead, best to get it done rather than risk him recovering enough to talk. When you consider what extraordinary lengths were taken to cover up the truth of the televised Kennedy assassination and dispose of so much evidence and so many witnesses and then go through the enormous charade of the Warren Report…not so hard to believe a 12-day coverup with few witnesses and no camera footage, within the confines of a hospital room.
  64. @Avery
    {Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union}

    If Patton thought Red Army was weakened at the end of WW2, he was delusional. The Red Army was a steamroller towards the end of WW2. It had about 12 million men under arms, with seemingly inexhaustible reserves. Production of tanks, airplanes, armaments was at a peak. Its generals and officers had defeated and crushed the Wehrmacht, the finest military force at the time. The same beaten down Wehrmacht, btw, which chased and routed well rested, well equipped American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Saved only by the US Air Force (...no Luftwaffe left by that time).

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.
    Which btw did stop Stalin. Not from doing anything in Europe, but in Asia Minor.

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.
    When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

    The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

    I think it’s fair to say that any nation that just lost 20 million (million!) or so people is weakened. Plus, you don’t figure in what destruction the Werhmacht wrought. Also, weak is a relative term. They were weak compared to what they would be after a post-war buildup, presumably, so better to go after them now than later. That’s the logic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {That’s the logic.}

    That's no logic.

    1939 Census USSR, 170 million people. (-25 million=145 million)
    1939 Census US, 132 million.

    USSR lost about 25 million people: about 10 million civilians and 15 million troops.

    Read my post again: by the end of WW2, despite their enormous losses the Red Army had 11 million tough, experienced men under arms, who had gone through Hell, and had come out a bunch of tough SOBs.

    I am assuming Patton meant US alone attacking USSR, since no European country was in a position to join. So how was US going to fight a land war with USSR on its backyard? If Nazi Germany, the finest military machine in the world at that time, and which was on the same continent, could not defeat USSR - how was US going to defeat USSR?

    In 1945 SU still had a larger population base than US.
    True they had lost a lot of fighting age men, but like I wrote, even with the enormous losses, they still had 11 million tough fighters in 1945.
    Their generals and officer corps had learned from Wehrmacht, and in many cases had become better than their teachers.

    And as the other poster wrote: who in America was going to volunteer to fight on the Eurasian continent? Who was going to convince anyone to go fight another X years people who they were told were their allies all this time.

    Patton was delusional and a loose cannon.
    And Patton had missed out on his chance: he got old before he could become 'Great'.

    He was a bitter old man seeking glory he did not have in his younger years.
  65. Ron, what I don’t get is: why bother? Was Patton such a threat to the post-war consensus? Nobody in the US or Western Europe (especially in the latter) had any appetite for war with the USSR. So let Patton come home and go on an anti-Soviet tour. What would he have accomplished? Was there really a chance that he might have rallied US public opinion for a US preemptive invasion/liberation of Eastern Europe? I don’t think so.

    And what then? Let’s suppose we had been able to get to the borders of the USSR. Did Patton have a plan for what next? Invade Russia like Napoleon and Hitler and have our asses handed to us? Stop at the border and just assume that the Russians would sign a treaty then and there ceding the USSR’s buffer zone? Nuke them into submission? None of these sound like good plans.

    So why not just let Patton do his tour and paint him as crazy? This plan has two strong points to recommend it. First, the Western oligarchy is very good at labeling anything it doesn’t like as “insane” and making that label stick. (See Sailer on “megaphonics.”) Second, the notion of attacking Russia in 1946 would have been, literally, crazy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Ron, what I don’t get is: why bother? Was Patton such a threat to the post-war consensus?
     
    Hard to say exactly from a distance of over 70 years. Keep in mind that developments which in hindsight seem inevitable may have been less so to active participants at the time. Today's official and long-settled narrative of WWII did not exist at that point.

    For example, a powerful ring of Communist spies stood near the very top of America's government during 1945, and who knows what Patton knew or might say about the situation in Europe. Wilcox emphasizes that Patton was among the few top American generals to be independently wealthy, and that he planned to resign his commission and forego his retirement pension so that he could speak out very freely once he returned to the U.S. In particular, there were various claims at the time that he had information that would have completely destroyed Eisenhower's reputation and his political hopes.

    Overall, there seem to be numerous plausible motives for Patton's elimination, and I certainly can't say which ones were decisive.
  66. @dahoit
    Yes,the Soviets would have run roughshod over the west,and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces,but probably not enough for victory.
    Plus the war weary drafted American troops wanted to just go home,and there would have been mutiny over an escalation into fighting the SU for how long?
    And Patton,a great fighting general,was an upper crust right wing elitist,and as the SU eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings,the lack of conflict was good,as no one had to die for nothing,as today's idiotic stupidity reveals.
    Yankee come home.

    Eventually, yes, after 50 or so years of Cold War.

    Read More
  67. @ic1000
    Intrigued by Mr Unz' post, I looked for writing that contests Wilcox's premise. Via an amazon.com review, I found the webpage The Death of General George S. Patton by Peter Hendrikx. It offers a point-by-point refutation of the elements of the "murder" argument, favoring "accident."

    * Hendrikx appears to be a sober and well-regarded Dutch author, whose main interest is Operation Market Garden.

    * The linked page contests many theories rather than focusing on Wilcox's, making for an awkward read.

    * Most seriously, Hendrikx doesn't offer links or footnotes, diminishing the value of his essay.

    Perhaps readers will post links to other books or websites that subject "Target: Patton" to careful scrutiny.

    Intrigued by Mr Unz’ post, I looked for writing that contests Wilcox’s premise. Via an amazon.com review, I found the webpage The Death of General George S. Patton by Peter Hendrikx. It offers a point-by-point refutation of the elements of the “murder” argument, favoring “accident.”

    Thanks for locating that attempted rebuttal, which I hadn’t previously noticed. However, even leaving aside the poor formatting and lack of references, I didn’t find the critique very persuasive.

    (1) The author claims that for thirty years there was never any serious suggestion that Patton was murdered However, Farago and other sources claim exactly the opposite, namely that rumors of Patton’s assassination began circulating almost immediately, though it’s not clear how seriously anyone took the charges.

    (2) Even more seriously, the author argues that the alleged OSS assassin’s initial claims were made no earlier than 1979 and were probably inspired by a fictional book published in 1974, later made into a film. However, Wilcox scrupulously explored exactly this possibility and interviewed several credible individuals, including Bernard Knox (a renowned classics scholar and former OSS agent) and a mainstream journalist, who confirmed that they had been told the story in 1972, years before the book appeared. Therefore, if anything, the book may have been inspired by circulating rumors of the assassination rather than the other way round.

    These sorts of very serious errors lead me to doubt that Hendrikx’s reliability or that he read the Wilcox book carefully, so I’d tend to discount most of his other material.

    Read More
  68. @DavidH
    The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. The United States and Britain helped.

    The United States suffered about 200,000 fatalities in combat against the Nazis. The Soviet Union lost around 27,000,000 dead, military and civilian. They deserve respect. They don't get any in this article.

    Of course there were many Soviet sympathizers in the U.S. government in 1945. We were allies.

    Did Patton want to betray an ally? If he did, I don't give a damn about how he died.

    The Soviets were, if anything, less respectful of human rights than the Germans –not meaning to speak up for either, just comparing. A captured Soviet soldier that escaped went to the Gulag as being contaminated.

    Also, you may want to check the tremendous amount of strategic war materials the U.S. shipped to the Soviets. Aluminum, Fuel TRUCKS and finished war equipment. P-39s and P-40 held the line against the Luftwaffe until the Soviets could utilize the raw materials for their own planes and other equipment.

    A bit of coordination with Japan and Germany would have won easily. No U.S. and it’s a tossup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DavidH
    The United States also supplied the Soviet Union with about 15% of the Red Army's food requirements. Over 200,000 trucks were supplied. By mid-1944 the Red Army had better motorized infantry capabilities than the German army, and that had a lot to do with it.

    The aircraft were never of much use because of logistical problems with spare parts and maintenance. It was a bitch of a problem.

    But the basic problem with you view is you forget that, however much materiel may be on hand, it is useless with soldiers. The Soviet armed forces engaged the Wehrmacht in battle to an extent many, many times greater than the United States military. Yet you show the Soviet servicepersons no respect.
    , @MarkinLA
    Not true.

    Most of the war materiel was completely USSR manufactured. We did send them a lot of machine tools, trucks and canned food. Russia flooded the US in the 90s with old home guard Mosin-Nagants which were the standard rifle of the Soviet Army (as well as captured German K-98s). They had their own unique cartridges and thus their own rifles, pistols, machine guns, tanks, artillery, and anti-tank guns. They had their own aircraft. A few were quite well regarded and known by aircraft aficionados. They also had what many consider the best overall tank in the war - far superior to the Sherman.

    What little we sent them had absolutely NO chance of making a dent against the Germans. When the Germans captured a Russian army in the beginning of the war almost everything was of Russian origin.

    This "we supplied the Russians" meme is so exaggerated by people in the US. The great film "The Unknown War" stated that total US support for the USSR was less than 5%. Not much got through until the wolf-packs were neutralized.

    http://ussr.wikia.com/wiki/Mosin_Nagant

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=134

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=38

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483223/
  69. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wizard of Oz
    Scepticism being de rigeur I turn to what might shed light on such a surprising story. (Surprising though admittedly ruthless behaviour in 1945 shouldn't be regarded as surprising).

    So I too Google for Wilcox Patton and indeed there is what , on the face of it, seems surprisingly little trace of the Patton murder story.

    Next question(s) then from the armchair - based on what conventional journalistic and editorial practice is when innocently trying simply to make money or careers.
    1. What coverage have other scandals disclosed 40 -70 years after the event received? Subdivided by kinds of scandals (at least sex deserves its own label) what has neen the flllow up apart from the odd book review or weekend supplement interview?
    2. How have the MSN applied their journalistic resources over the years bearing in mind that broadshheets probably boosted their investigative reporting in the 50s to 90s to compete with TV but that in the last 20 years they have been severely affected by the decline in both sales and advertising so maybe actually take their cues from social media and early morning shock jock talk back rather than initiate any controversies through journalistic value adding to a story handed to them like the contents of Wilcox's book.
    3. It can't explain the almost complete lack of notice in America's MSM but what might the editor of the NYT have ressonably been expected to do when the Wilcox book was drawn to his attention as it would surely have been when Wilcox wrote an article for the NY Post or some young journalist asked if he could follow up the allegations as well as review the book which a friend had just given him? Here's one version of the conversation:
    "George Patton? Who's he? Well of course I know who he was - the general who slapped the soldier and a raving anti-Semite but, yeah, great with tanks - I'm not sure that it's got a lot of mileage with our readership today but it isn't a good look for US generals to be assassinated so you go for it if you can get anyone to talk. Start with Wilcocks and see if you can get him to put you on to people who will talk. And see if there's anyone who claims it's all bullshit and seems to have done his homework. You can skip law enforcement unless you find something new for them."

    So a journalist gives up after total blanks from FBI, Department of Justice and Wilcox just telling him to read the book and look for old OSS people to talk to. He asks some German journalists to see if there might be any archives of any kind which shed light on what investigators found but that's another blank. He tries the Patton family and even Ike's family but again nothing.

    What coverage have other scandals disclosed 40 -70 years after the event received?

    knock yourself out

    “The Secret War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II”

    and

    Aldo Icardi, a Maitland lawyer, disputed repeated accusations that he had murdered his commanding officer while behind enemy lines in Italy.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1986-09-21/news/0250400027_1_icardi-oss-italian-partisans

    Read More
  70. @Planet Albany
    Donovan had been fired and the OSS abolished well before Patton's Dec. 8 accident. The casual smearing of Donovan, who won the congressional medal of honor for combat heroism in World War I, made significant contributions to US victory in World War II, and was a resolute anti-communist at the start of the Cold War, is offensive, IMHO. But then much as I disagree with Sen. John McCain's hawkishness, I don't like your smearing of him, either.

    Donovan had been fired and the OSS abolished well before Patton’s Dec. 8 accident.

    Yes. Wilcox describes at considerable length how Donovan was desperately attempting to maintain his OSS intelligence empire under Truman during early/mid-1945, and it was apparently around then that the alleged plans to eliminate Patton were put into motion. Indeed, Patton’s first strange brush with death actually took place before the European war had even ended, in late April 1945.

    While I obviously can’t be absolutely sure whether Wilcox’s hypothesis is correct, he did spend ten years thoroughly researching his book, and I very much doubt that any such totally obvious flaws would have escaped his attention.

    There actually seems a great deal of evidence that Donovan originally began as something of a British agent, then may have possibly transferred his partial loyalties to Russia due to the powerful network of Communist agents near the top of the Roosevelt Administration during much of WWII.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Planet Albany
    Donovan, like FDR, wanted US to help Britain before Pearl Harbor. And they both cooperated with Chuchill and Stalin to defeat Hitler. That does not make either of them a British or Russian agent.
  71. @manton
    Ron, what I don't get is: why bother? Was Patton such a threat to the post-war consensus? Nobody in the US or Western Europe (especially in the latter) had any appetite for war with the USSR. So let Patton come home and go on an anti-Soviet tour. What would he have accomplished? Was there really a chance that he might have rallied US public opinion for a US preemptive invasion/liberation of Eastern Europe? I don't think so.

    And what then? Let's suppose we had been able to get to the borders of the USSR. Did Patton have a plan for what next? Invade Russia like Napoleon and Hitler and have our asses handed to us? Stop at the border and just assume that the Russians would sign a treaty then and there ceding the USSR's buffer zone? Nuke them into submission? None of these sound like good plans.

    So why not just let Patton do his tour and paint him as crazy? This plan has two strong points to recommend it. First, the Western oligarchy is very good at labeling anything it doesn't like as "insane" and making that label stick. (See Sailer on "megaphonics.") Second, the notion of attacking Russia in 1946 would have been, literally, crazy.

    Ron, what I don’t get is: why bother? Was Patton such a threat to the post-war consensus?

    Hard to say exactly from a distance of over 70 years. Keep in mind that developments which in hindsight seem inevitable may have been less so to active participants at the time. Today’s official and long-settled narrative of WWII did not exist at that point.

    For example, a powerful ring of Communist spies stood near the very top of America’s government during 1945, and who knows what Patton knew or might say about the situation in Europe. Wilcox emphasizes that Patton was among the few top American generals to be independently wealthy, and that he planned to resign his commission and forego his retirement pension so that he could speak out very freely once he returned to the U.S. In particular, there were various claims at the time that he had information that would have completely destroyed Eisenhower’s reputation and his political hopes.

    Overall, there seem to be numerous plausible motives for Patton’s elimination, and I certainly can’t say which ones were decisive.

    Read More
  72. @Wizard of Oz
    I thought i had got it from the article but having searched for "embolism" I'm not sure. From Wikipedia on Patton's Last Days it appears that Truman ordered him, immobilised by his cast (as well perhaps as paralysis), to be brought back to the States. He died, it was said, 12 days after the accident. There seems no reason to disbelieve that version just because a witness saw him at the accident site showing no obvious sign of life. The accident doesn't seem to have been one which, in itself, was likely to result in death so it seems unlikely to have been chosen as the way of kiliing him.

    Well that’s because there was no accident. He was killed by the blow of a blunt instrument to the back of his head.

    Read More
  73. @Outwest
    The Soviets were, if anything, less respectful of human rights than the Germans –not meaning to speak up for either, just comparing. A captured Soviet soldier that escaped went to the Gulag as being contaminated.

    Also, you may want to check the tremendous amount of strategic war materials the U.S. shipped to the Soviets. Aluminum, Fuel TRUCKS and finished war equipment. P-39s and P-40 held the line against the Luftwaffe until the Soviets could utilize the raw materials for their own planes and other equipment.

    A bit of coordination with Japan and Germany would have won easily. No U.S. and it’s a tossup.

    The United States also supplied the Soviet Union with about 15% of the Red Army’s food requirements. Over 200,000 trucks were supplied. By mid-1944 the Red Army had better motorized infantry capabilities than the German army, and that had a lot to do with it.

    The aircraft were never of much use because of logistical problems with spare parts and maintenance. It was a bitch of a problem.

    But the basic problem with you view is you forget that, however much materiel may be on hand, it is useless with soldiers. The Soviet armed forces engaged the Wehrmacht in battle to an extent many, many times greater than the United States military. Yet you show the Soviet servicepersons no respect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DavidH
    OOPS! That should be, "however much materiel may be on hand, it is useless WITHOUT soldiers."
    , @Hibernian
    I'll show them the same respect that Black Lives Matter would show Confederate soldiers, because I'm anticommunist.
  74. @James Kabala
    The government probably has the ability to fake a lot of things, but to pretend that a dead man is alive for twelve days seems like a pretty difficult one. One or two days, maybe. But twelve days?

    Keep in mind this was 1945. They had to get the wife there (whose death was also suspicious), and consider that if you want someone dead, best to get it done rather than risk him recovering enough to talk. When you consider what extraordinary lengths were taken to cover up the truth of the televised Kennedy assassination and dispose of so much evidence and so many witnesses and then go through the enormous charade of the Warren Report…not so hard to believe a 12-day coverup with few witnesses and no camera footage, within the confines of a hospital room.

    Read More
  75. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Alfa158
    Japan was not offering to surrender prior to the atomic bombs. Historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa have documented that the Japanese were trying to use the Soviet Union, while it was still a neutral, as an intermediary to broker an armistice, not an unconditional surrender. The Japanese proposal was:
    - Cease fire in place.
    - Emperor stayed on the throne.
    - Japan could retain existing political structure.
    - No Allied armed forces on Japanese soil.
    - Japan withdraws to pre-war territories.
    - War crime trials of Japanese officers and officials would be conducted by Japanese courts.

    Read “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” by Herbert Hoover. (https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betrayed-Herbert-Hoovers-Aftermath/dp/0817912347) It is but only one of others that document the Japanese attempts at surrendering. Hoover makes the startling claim that the Japanese prince (IIRC) made the unprecedented offer to meet outside of Japan soil.

    Hoover made a lousy president but as a historian and document gatherer he is to be held in extremely high regards. Hoover’s library began when Hoover began to collect all the documents he could get his hands on the day after Pearl Harbor. His, Hoover’s, prior works as an engineer and assistance to Europe after WW1 made him friends in high places. The Poland ambassador to these uSA gave Hoover all the documents of the Polish embassy to Hoover.

    It is a long book but worth reading.

    Read More
  76. @Andrei Martyanov
    Evidently, this whole Patton's assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes. Patton WAS NOT known to public in Europe prior to the famous movie with genius of an actor, George C. Scott, in it. The first page of Ladislas Farago's study:

    https://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Patton-Ladislas-Farago/dp/B004THUILG/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471870883&sr=1-9

    asks immediately--how this figure (Patton) could get a movie before Zhukov, Montgomery or Rommel. That was the question German public was asking in 1970. Patton's assassination is from the same field as him planning Cobra (in reality--Bradley's work), or Patton being something of a special genius for warfare, when in reality he never fought the best of Wehrmacht at the top of their game. Yet, decades pass by and not a movie about such notable US military leaders like Omar Bradly, Ike, let alone true military genius George C. Marshal--too boring, too conventional. The whole of notion of "fighting Russians" in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.

    Evidently, this whole Patton’s assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes…The whole of notion of “fighting Russians” in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.

    Well, I’m not a military expert on late WWII, but Patton’s repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended. Therefore, he thought the Russians would have little chance of fighting more than a few weeks against America’s massively-supplied military. Wasn’t there some famous strategist who emphasized that while amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics? I can’t say whether Patton’s opinion was at all correct, but that’s what he was arguing to everyone.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton’s statements in 1945, it seemed like he’d half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America’s most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.

    I really don’t feel that “motive” is the weak point of the assassination hypothesis…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drakejax
    I have to back Ron on this one. Patton (and also Simson who commanded the 9th Army) were more competant than the Army's "in crowd" of 1st Army (Hodges), 12th Group (Bradley), and Ike. With Patton's death, the histories were written by the in-crowd. That is where Patton is historically important despite being a "mere" field army commander in a war of even larger formations.

    As to the Soviet Army at war's end, it was a shambles in Europe. The best part was being transferred to Asia to invade Manchuria, while what was left had been shattered in the final offesnive against Berlin. The Soviets would require more than a generation to recover from the casualties inflicted by the Germans. They had shot their bolt in Europe and while I wouldn't think a third world war on the heels of the second would have been wise, a firmer stance against the Soviets was possible.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    but Patton’s repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended.
     
    Review of the operations around Berlin and prior to it--in Pomerania actually testify to diametrically opposite. As Glantz and House assess Red Army's lines of communications throughout third (last) phase of WW II, they called it a "prodigious feats" in supplying a very sustained and massive Red Army's offensive operations for months. The question here is purely speculative and....operational--could Red Army defend against Allies? Undoubtedly so, considering the scale and combat experience of the Red Army by 1945 Patton's ideas sound amateurish at best, insane--at worst.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.
     
    Yes, Patton considered Russians to be Asiatic untermench. In reality, a lot of what Patton conveyed was a case of pure professional jealousy, the fact superbly described by David Eisenhower in his seminal historic dedication to his notable grandfather, Ike. Asiatic "motives" are not unique only to Patton, e.g. late Rear-Admiral Kemp Tolley (whom I had a privilege to talk to many times) who served as a deputy Naval Attache in USSR during 1942-44 also thought Russians to be somewhat Asiatic, which never prevented him from marrying a Russian woman, admire Admiral Arsenii Golovko (Northern Fleet Commander) and be very close friends with then superintendent of my Naval Academy Rear-Admiral Ramishvili. Tolley, certainly, didn't want to fight US Soviet allies. What a difference.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton’s statements in 1945, it seemed like he’d half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America’s most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.
     
    That might be true (or not)--but my point was that Patton's merits as a military leader, while not small, were greatly exaggerated for the narrative. Hence this never ending soap opera with the possibility of Allies fighting Red Army. Patton is mentioned only once by Hitler (he called him crazy cowboy) a rather humble standing with the enemy. The only "threat" Patton could possibly provide for the Red Army or USSR was his ridiculously big mouth. Militarily Patton wasn't even close to the league of Bradley and Ike, let alone people such as Rokossovsky or Vasilevsky or, for that matter, Marshal. I don't think communist "spies" really would have any reasons to kill a guy who was at most secondary to the overall Allied Victory.
    , @MarkinLA
    Patton’s repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended.

    As compared to the US where every ounce of fuel had to be brought in by ships? Wasn't one of Ike's biggest problems deciding which of his hungry chicks was to get the worm next? By that I mean Patton's army was supposedly halted just outside of Germany because they overran their supply lines because the operation in norther Europe were given priority.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Motive? It would be that of those Soviet spies and their masters. It's hard to see Harry Truman who didn't face an election for three years getting too fussed about the prospect of Patton campaigning. And, to give weight to the Communist emphasis there would have been apprehension that the US would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union if it attacked. As it would have if it wasn't winning well enough because of its logistics advantage or GIs were getting stroppy about not being sent home. Yep. Motive not a big problem.

    Now I am trying to hunt down any answer to my problem about the (secondhand) Wilcox version - which I think he now affirms as hearsay on this thread - because another commenter has pointed out that Donovan was no longer in charge by the time of Patton's death. Sorry if I've missed something but that does seem to me to be a point Wilcox should deal with.

  77. @DavidH
    The United States also supplied the Soviet Union with about 15% of the Red Army's food requirements. Over 200,000 trucks were supplied. By mid-1944 the Red Army had better motorized infantry capabilities than the German army, and that had a lot to do with it.

    The aircraft were never of much use because of logistical problems with spare parts and maintenance. It was a bitch of a problem.

    But the basic problem with you view is you forget that, however much materiel may be on hand, it is useless with soldiers. The Soviet armed forces engaged the Wehrmacht in battle to an extent many, many times greater than the United States military. Yet you show the Soviet servicepersons no respect.

    OOPS! That should be, “however much materiel may be on hand, it is useless WITHOUT soldiers.”

    Read More
  78. @John Jeremiah Smith
    It is August 2016. WWII is 7o years in the past. More than two generations.

    Okay, Ron et al, let's assume Patton was assassinated.

    Now what?

    To quote our dear, sick President-For-Life-To-Be, "at this point, what difference does it make?"

    It is August 2016. WWII is 7o years in the past. More than two generations.

    Okay, Ron et al, let’s assume Patton was assassinated.

    Now what?

    To quote our dear, sick President-For-Life-To-Be, “at this point, what difference does it make?”

    That’s absolutely correct, which is why so much of my focus is on the MSM aspects of the matter.

    Let’s suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward. Then, when a massively researched and persuasive book was published in 2008 presenting a very strong case, it was still totally ignored by the entire MSM and none of the facts were ever allowed into the 15,000 word Wikipedia entry on Patton.

    Shouldn’t that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant “conspiracy theories” because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM? And if Wikipedia seems to have entirely covered up Patton’s likely assassination, how can we trust it about anything else, including much more current disputes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Shouldn’t that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant “conspiracy theories” because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM? And if Wikipedia seems to have entirely covered up Patton’s likely assassination, how can we trust it about anything else, including much more current disputes?
     
    Quite so, Ron; we should approach all "conspiracy theories," and also absence of diligent reporting, with detached skepticism.

    All except one event in human history about which, fortuitously, we have the slam-dunk evidence of shrunken heads and lampshades made of human skin. THAT bit of history we can -- in fact we must -- believe with absolute certainty. Or else.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Let’s suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward.
     
    A supposition? Seems more like a safe assumption. Can you think of a single cover-up of government criminal activity the MSM has exposed? Excluding personal vendettas, the frequent sexual escapades and individual efforts at fraud, extortion, etc. common among petty officials, of course. Truly egregious examples, such as the murders and destruction of Americans and American materiel by Israel in 1967, remain aggressively and persistently quashed. There no reason to believe media-control will ever stop.

    Shouldn’t that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant “conspiracy theories” because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM?
     
    For the public at large? How are you going to accomplish that? Sure, there are people like us, who have learned over time that the MSM do the bidding of those who hold power. I see no available path to Truth and Integrity in government and media. A fatuous fantasy, at best.

    There are ruminations about that the US public no longer implicitly trusts the media, that polls may be inaccurate because Americans now conceal their true opinions, saving them for expression in the voting booth. Who is telling us that? The media. What does it matter to them? Their power is absolute, their control well-within the capability of producing any set of options desired by those in power.

    Yes, things will eventually get so bad that America, or parts of it, will revolt. That tempest will be quelled -- ruthlessly -- before spilling out of the teapot . The weaponry available to the modern totalitarian police state permits no successful revolutions.

    I'm sure tomorrow's gruel will be delicious.
  79. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    If Patton was killed on purpose, maybe because he was a ”loose cannon”. He wasn’t one of those usual type leaders who take orders! from pipsqueeks. He probably figured he had every right to think his own thoughts and say his opinions. Wrong. You do as they PTB tells you to do, or like
    Warren Beatie Howard Beale in Network said, ”You shall Atone!..

    You know what H. Kissinger said about military men…

    Another thing about Patton that strikes me as screwy, was the incident when he went to the hospital and gave some ”tough love” to a malingering lightly wounded GI. (depicted in the Geo C.Scott movie Patton, but it was something commonly known. That Patton was trashed heavily about for being too course about that. (Bad bedside manners.)

    If anybody remembers Wylie’s book A Generation of Vipers, in where is made a thesis about the awful infantilism, of Americans, which had been observed sadly in war, when unlike supposedly other cultures, there’s a tendency to regression, or to get to the point: Wylie coined a term: Momism. That’s a facet of the ”Nanny State”, Patton would be against the grain of that for sure. Those Liberals, talk nicetynice, and then they kill you!

    I don’t believe anything said about Communism, because the advanced stages of consolidated capitalism of today, and its captive MSM, (Pravda anyone?) is guilty of all the above by another name, including, if you’re paying attention, a form of nascent Gulag, (to an extent). But they love to play word games, give these Neanderthals a chance and they’ll be having Witch hunts again, for Witches with f’n broomsticks. If she floats she’s a witch, if she sinks, probable was innocent…haha

    On the side: Ok, you can have your Committee of Unamerican Activities comm. and your McCarthys, and your Roy Cohns, &etcs. if that’s what you like.

    Read More
  80. The Patton death’s comingling of trails to both government and Soviet fingerprints (with perhaps some of the same possible suspects being linked to both i.e. an American official who is a communist working with the NKVD) matches another high-profile but unclear death – JFK’s. Indeed, putting blame into neat categories may be the obstacle to figuring out what happened when key players may have worn several hats. For example, a mafia member who does freelance work for an American intelligence agency yet whose contact is a communist infiltrator who works along the suggestions provided by a NKVD/KGB contact; in whose interests does he work?

    Read More
  81. I doubt that story very much. Here are the facts.

    The car with three people in it was travelling slow. Patton and his Chief of Staff, Major General Hobart Gay, and a driver Horace Woodring at the wheel. Patton and Gay in the back seat. Somewhere along the road they collide with a truck. It is a minor collision during which only General Patton gets hurt and rather seriously. Two of his vertebrae were broken but he lived for another 12 days. If it had been an assassination it would have been the first one I know of which relied on chance.

    Here are the inconsistencies, speculations, rumours, wild guesses and such.

    The agent, Douglas Bazata, keeps changing his story. In one version he claims to organize the colision and shooting Patton in the neck with low velocity projectile the result of which were two broken vertebrae. Well when did he shoot? He could not have done it before the collision and he could not have done it after the collision. To hit the neck right at the moment of the collision is very unlikely because the back window is quite small. It gets better. In another version he says that he shot Patten from the side. Then he announced in front of 450 invited guests, nearly all high-ranking ex-members of the OSS at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC the 25th of September, 1979. that he was not the actual killer but knew who killed him and that he was poisoned in the hospital in which he was recuperating. He claims that the poisoners were agents of NKVD. In another version he even told Wilcox that he was finally able to get a message to the general that he was the target of an assassination plot, but a short time before Patton was set to leave Germany for the United States, the road crash took place on Dec. 21, 1945. Nothing of this makes sense. Why arrange an accident so that we can brake someone’s neck with a low velocity projectile? There are simpler ways to get rid of somebody.

    The Russians had absolutely no reason to assassinate him. Patton was about to retire and his animosity towards Russians at this stage could not do any harm. I also believe that the US government had no reason to assassinate him just because he had some disagreements concerning policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "I also believe that the US government had no reason to assassinate him just because he had some disagreements concerning policy."
     
    Unless, of course, they were trying to send a strong message to the entire General staff. We had a lot of larger-than-life types walking around those days who could have completely unsettled the control of the show if they had wanted to.
    , @dfordoom

    The Russians had absolutely no reason to assassinate him.
     
    Considering that they intended to hold on to enormous chunks of territory in eastern Europe, and to foment revolutions in other European countries (like Greece) and that Patton was likely to make a big noise about it and possibly sway American public opinion enough to force the US government to actively oppose it I'd say there was ample motive.

    I actually think it's unlikely he was assassinated but I agree with Ron that there were plenty of people with plausible motives.
    , @Erik L
    Yes if it was an assassination it was remarkably incompetent.

    '"Taken to a hospital in Heidelberg, Patton was discovered to have a compression fracture and dislocation of the cervical third and fourth vertebrae, resulting in a broken neck and cervical spinal cord injury that rendered him paralyzed from the neck down. He spent most of the next 12 days in spinal traction to decrease spinal pressure. All non-medical visitors, except for Patton's wife, who had flown from the U.S., were forbidden. Patton, who had been told he had no chance to ever again ride a horse or resume normal life, at one point commented, "This is a hell of a way to die."'
  82. @Ron Unz

    Evidently, this whole Patton’s assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes...The whole of notion of “fighting Russians” in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.
     
    Well, I'm not a military expert on late WWII, but Patton's repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended. Therefore, he thought the Russians would have little chance of fighting more than a few weeks against America's massively-supplied military. Wasn't there some famous strategist who emphasized that while amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics? I can't say whether Patton's opinion was at all correct, but that's what he was arguing to everyone.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton's statements in 1945, it seemed like he'd half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America's most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.

    I really don't feel that "motive" is the weak point of the assassination hypothesis...

    I have to back Ron on this one. Patton (and also Simson who commanded the 9th Army) were more competant than the Army’s “in crowd” of 1st Army (Hodges), 12th Group (Bradley), and Ike. With Patton’s death, the histories were written by the in-crowd. That is where Patton is historically important despite being a “mere” field army commander in a war of even larger formations.

    As to the Soviet Army at war’s end, it was a shambles in Europe. The best part was being transferred to Asia to invade Manchuria, while what was left had been shattered in the final offesnive against Berlin. The Soviets would require more than a generation to recover from the casualties inflicted by the Germans. They had shot their bolt in Europe and while I wouldn’t think a third world war on the heels of the second would have been wise, a firmer stance against the Soviets was possible.

    Read More
  83. @Anonymous
    Seems to me all but certain that Patton was assassinated. It also seems as likely as not to me that Joe McCarthy and James Forrestal were both killed while at the Bethesda Naval Hospital for similar reasons (Communism, Judaism, Soviet spies and sympathizers, leftists in high position in the US government) as Patton was silenced.

    This whole thing smells of Allen Dulles. I agree that McCarthy and Forrestal were likely done in at Bethesda Naval Hospital. I wish someone, like Stephen Kinzer, would do a thorough investigation on the death of James Forrestal and write a book about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "I wish someone, like Stephen Kinzer, would do a thorough investigation on the death of James Forrestal and write a book about it." - It won't happen because his opposition to creation of Israel would have to be dealt with. The power and shenanigans of Zionist after WWII still await a mainstream historian. Did they intimidate Truman with attempted assassination? Did he accept $1 million in cash from them for his campaign? Jewish issues are touchy and most of the time remains a taboo. For example the issue of why the US went o war in the first place? What about the common belief that it was war for Jews? Even after the war during Nuremberg trial chief prosecutor (father of future senator Dodd) was still concerned about it. See his letter to his wife:

    "You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge -- you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial -- for their own sake.
    "For -- mark this well -- the charge 'a war for the Jews' is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again.

    "The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter --it is distasteful to me -- but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else."

    I wonder if all letters written by Patton to his wife have been researched? Perhaps there one could find the clue about Patton's intentions at the time of his death. Personally I do not believe that Patton could changed history vis-a-vis Soviet Union but he affect the narrative of the WWII that could have been detrimental to the creation of the state of Israel.
  84. @Ron Unz

    It is August 2016. WWII is 7o years in the past. More than two generations.

    Okay, Ron et al, let’s assume Patton was assassinated.

    Now what?

    To quote our dear, sick President-For-Life-To-Be, “at this point, what difference does it make?”
     
    That's absolutely correct, which is why so much of my focus is on the MSM aspects of the matter.

    Let's suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward. Then, when a massively researched and persuasive book was published in 2008 presenting a very strong case, it was still totally ignored by the entire MSM and none of the facts were ever allowed into the 15,000 word Wikipedia entry on Patton.

    Shouldn't that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant "conspiracy theories" because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM? And if Wikipedia seems to have entirely covered up Patton's likely assassination, how can we trust it about anything else, including much more current disputes?

    Shouldn’t that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant “conspiracy theories” because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM? And if Wikipedia seems to have entirely covered up Patton’s likely assassination, how can we trust it about anything else, including much more current disputes?

    Quite so, Ron; we should approach all “conspiracy theories,” and also absence of diligent reporting, with detached skepticism.

    All except one event in human history about which, fortuitously, we have the slam-dunk evidence of shrunken heads and lampshades made of human skin. THAT bit of history we can — in fact we must — believe with absolute certainty. Or else.

    Read More
  85. @Jus' Sayin'...
    My father fought in the Pacific and when the war ended was preparing for the invasion of Japan. He might very likely have died had that occurred. After Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc. the USA was preparing for a horrifically costly invasion. One preparation was a massive order for Purple Hearts, the stock of which is still being used up as a result of the USA's many military misadventures since WW II.

    The strategy of massive aerial bombardment with incendiaries -- which on some nights had caused more casualties than occurred at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki -- had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender. Neither had the gradually tightening noose around the home islands whose inevitable conclusion was a bloody invasion. Something more drastic was required and the atom bomb was the available tool. Even then it took two demonstrations of the weapon before the Japanese finally conceded defeat.

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely -- or indeed at all -- as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    Strange what some people do to try and prove a point no matter how invalid,one would assume seeing Japan is an island and we controlled the sea and the area around it that we would have simply sit for after all they weren’t going anywhere were they? with no ships or aircraft. As for documentation read the two volume set “The Rising Sun” taken from Japans own internal records after the war,very well documented..!!!

    Read More
  86. Anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I want to thank Ron Unz for his column on my book – a complete surprise to me. This is not just praise because the column was positive. I’m very appreciative of the depth and understanding of what I say in his column. I could not have written a better description of my work. He caught all the facts, suppositions and points – exactly as I wrote them. Target:Patton is an exhaustive examination of the proposition – not fact – that Patton was assassinated. No one, given what we know now, will ever be able to say positively what happened. I say no more. The reader must decide, not me. But I believe he was assassinated and I think I can safely say no one has ever investigated it more than myself, including Ladislaw Farago, who was one of my chief beginning sources.

    In Patton, Farago’s book made into a movie, he accepted the standard story that Patton’s death was an accident. Like so many historians later he didn’t take the time to really look into the death. But in Last Days of Patton, his in-depth exploration of those last days, he admits he’d been too fast and that there were serious indications that it wasn’t an accident. He laments he didn’t follow them but he had to leave it at that. He died shortly thereafter. But that, among others, was my invitation. You can read Target Patton for the rest; i.e., there is good reason, in my judgement, to believe he was assassinated. You be the judge – but not based on what you’ve heard and read before.

    I’ve gone through all the comments up to 72. I’ve not seen any objections that are not dealt with in the book. One of the problems with comment sections is that people assume on the basis of what they already believe that they have a good point. They assume their point is not dealt with in the book. But all the objections I’ve seen here are. Ron is again right in his answers to comments. I would basically answer the same way he does. But a few points I saw brought thoughts to my mind.

    “Patton was virulently anti-Semitic.” It’s true he had an on-going war with journalists, whom he saw as largely leftist and Jewish. Unlike most, he said so in public as well as private. But he also had Jews close to him and on his staff whom he loved and was unabashedly demonstrative about it. His chief of intelligence, Oscar Koch, was one. There are others named in my book. Patton once welcomed a group of black soldiers saying, (paraphrased) I don’t care what your color or your creed, if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother. That was Patton. He really didn’t care – unless you challenged him and then you got the fighting Patton – the man most responsible for kicking the Germans out of France and our best fighting general. I saw several comments that he wasn’t. I challenge anyone on that. It was common knowledge that when the Germans looked at the Allies, their first question was: Where’s Patton? They feared him beyond all others, including the Russians, whom, according to Patton, were down to ox carts to move their armies when he wanted to fight them.

    Patton also toured the concentration camps and saw all their horror. He did make disparaging remarks privately to his wife in his diary about the conditions and inmates. But never any way, as far as my research indicates, was he going to try and debunk the Holocaust. Wherever that came from I don’t know and I’ve read an awful lot about Patton. If someone said it, they are wrong or basing it on wrong information.

    Regarding Peter Hendrikx’s article. I know Peter. He helped me in one aspect of my research, providing valuable pictures and information about the accident site. I thank him in my book. I think he was quite upset when he saw the results. He thought I would be going along with the standard story. With all due respect, the main research Peter did was to interview the driver of the limousine in which Patton was injured. Horace Woodring always told the story he was supposed to tell and thus he gave Peter the impression that nothing was untoward. Woodring had died when I wrote my book but his family, as quoted in my book, knew a different truth. He always questioned the accident. There’s a story behind this too. Gen. Gay, Patton’s aide whom some suspect as being in on the plot, made a special point of contacting Woodring and telling him to stick to the standard story. I’m not sure that is in my book or whether I learned of it later. In any case, Woodring’s family are some of the many witnesses whom I interviewed and Peter did not. There is certainly Woodring’s testimony to Peter. But then there is the testimony of 100 of others and similarly numbered documents that refute the impression Peter got in his lone interview. Read the book. You will see what I mean.

    Finally, let me address the accusation against Donovan, that he was complicit. Donovan did win the Medal of Honor in WWI. He was a courageous soldier. He was also a mysterious figure who was very ambitious to the point of rashness. These aspects are fully explored in the book. And the accusation, building upon them, is not mine but that of an OSS assassin. He describes the meetings with Donovan, not me. This assassin is key in the book. Without him, the book could not have been written. Supporting him was Stephen Skubik, a CIC agent. Without those two eye witnesses, the book could not have been written. At least I would not have written it. But they are both very credible and their testimony has to be dealt with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    What was the cost to Frenchmen of Patton's, or more saliently, the Allied firebombers, of "kicking Germans out of France?"
    Allied firebombing killed more French civilians and destroyed more French civilian infrastructure than Germans did.

    But for Roosevelt's determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn't it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.
     
    Note to Alexander, re comment #86

    In my opinion it is so important to understand George H W Bush's reasons for prosecuting the war in Persian Gulf 1990 - 1991 precisely because he pegged it to US aims in WWII:

    He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.
     
    SmoothieX12 argues forcefully that it was the Russians who defeated Hitler; and to defuse any whiff of antisemitism surrounding Patton, Robert K Wilcox noted that Patton's attitude was "if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother."

    A larger, and unresolved, even though never asked, question is, Why was it deemed necessary to "kill Germans?"

    Wilcox mentions that "Patton visited the concentration camps . . ." and was, of course appalled.

    But those visits took place well after 1933, and 1939, and 1940, and 1941, and 1944 -- when David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv stated that they believed Auschwitz was a labor camp.
    As Timothy Snyder told an audience in Chicago a year or so ago,

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs
     
    Presumably, Patton's "love like a brother" for anyone willing to kill Germans" was expressed before 1945, when he visited concentration camps.
    So where did that passion for killing Germans come from?

    In 1933, what was Germany's crime such that influential members of the Jewish community organized to carry out an economic war against Germany with the intend of destroying Germany's economy? In 1933, for what reasons did the American people have a need to "kill Germans?"

    In 1938, 1939, 1940, what casus belli did the USA have against Germany?

    In 1942 and 1943, what had Germans done to USA that was so grievous that only the unconditional surrender of Germany, and the continued brutalization of German civilians as well as German POWs/ disarmed enemy combatants, for over 3 years beyond that surrender, was sufficient to sate that primal urge to "kill Germans?"

    It's broken record time -- I will keep asking this until I get a good answer:

    In 2015 Robert Cohen wrote:

    Holocaust denial will remain a fringe issue. The documentation is secure in its veracity and overwhelming in its volume. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited/#sthash.3Bb8L3Q2.dpuf
     
    The implication is that it is not the case that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews."

    Therefore, these questions demand answers:
    How and why did "today's school children" come to think that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews;

    In 1933, 1936, 1939, 1940, what was "happening to the Jews" that required that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin foment war against Hitler;"
    Was anything that Hitler was doing to anybody in those years worse than what Stalin had done- and was doing- to kulaks, Ukrainians and Poles in 1932 - 1940?

    And if it is not true that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews," as Cohen implies, then why did they?

    Why did Patton "love like a brother" anyone -- even Jews and Negroes -- who would kill Germans?
    , @Incitatus
    If Patton was assassinated, did Truman know?

    If so, why didn’t he give Douglas MacArthur the same treatment? MacArthur, after all, loudly wanted to expand war, publicly challenged Truman, and constituted an electoral threat into the bargain.
    , @Carroll Price

    But never any way, as far as my research indicates, was he going to try and debunk the Holocaust.
     
    You seem to forget that the holocaust fable was not invented until long after WW 2. In fact, if my recollections serves me correctly, the current tale did not materialize and assume a life all it's own until the early 1980s, or thereabouts. So, with that in mind, how could Patton, or anyone else at the time of his assassination, have been planning to deny a story that Jews had not yet gotten around to inventing?
  87. @Ron Unz

    It is August 2016. WWII is 7o years in the past. More than two generations.

    Okay, Ron et al, let’s assume Patton was assassinated.

    Now what?

    To quote our dear, sick President-For-Life-To-Be, “at this point, what difference does it make?”
     
    That's absolutely correct, which is why so much of my focus is on the MSM aspects of the matter.

    Let's suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward. Then, when a massively researched and persuasive book was published in 2008 presenting a very strong case, it was still totally ignored by the entire MSM and none of the facts were ever allowed into the 15,000 word Wikipedia entry on Patton.

    Shouldn't that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant "conspiracy theories" because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM? And if Wikipedia seems to have entirely covered up Patton's likely assassination, how can we trust it about anything else, including much more current disputes?

    Let’s suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward.

    A supposition? Seems more like a safe assumption. Can you think of a single cover-up of government criminal activity the MSM has exposed? Excluding personal vendettas, the frequent sexual escapades and individual efforts at fraud, extortion, etc. common among petty officials, of course. Truly egregious examples, such as the murders and destruction of Americans and American materiel by Israel in 1967, remain aggressively and persistently quashed. There no reason to believe media-control will ever stop.

    Shouldn’t that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant “conspiracy theories” because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM?

    For the public at large? How are you going to accomplish that? Sure, there are people like us, who have learned over time that the MSM do the bidding of those who hold power. I see no available path to Truth and Integrity in government and media. A fatuous fantasy, at best.

    There are ruminations about that the US public no longer implicitly trusts the media, that polls may be inaccurate because Americans now conceal their true opinions, saving them for expression in the voting booth. Who is telling us that? The media. What does it matter to them? Their power is absolute, their control well-within the capability of producing any set of options desired by those in power.

    Yes, things will eventually get so bad that America, or parts of it, will revolt. That tempest will be quelled — ruthlessly — before spilling out of the teapot . The weaponry available to the modern totalitarian police state permits no successful revolutions.

    I’m sure tomorrow’s gruel will be delicious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    More analysis and discrimination and less rhetoric and absolutist assertion please.

    "Their power is absolute their control well within the capability of producing whatever any set of options desired by those in power".

    Reflect on that. Isn't almost every part the naive nightmare of someone who has lived as a monk or hermit with little ordinary human contact? (Of course you won't say "yes" if you actually fit that description).

    "Absolute power"! What does it even mean?

    And can anyone point to a group of the powerful who aren't in serious contention with one another? Exceptions and temporary truces have to be demonstrated - as exceptions.

    You are incidentally implying that none of the powerful belong to groups with differences in their underlying value systems or do you think that every difference in religion is subsumed amongst the powerful by an overarching lust for wealth? (Of course you would then need to look at the purposes for which they desire wealth and what flows from it. OK you could say that inhertance taxes don't worry them because they don't touch the very rich. But what of those who give it away in large chunks? Do they all line up together? Are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett part of some "Anglo-Zionist" conspiracy of those with the "absolute power"?).

    Wake up, escape your nightmares and start looking, listening and thinking. You'll find enough bad particulars to keep you happy.

    , @Rurik

    Their power is absolute, their control well-within the capability of producing any set of options desired by those in power.
     
    almost

    I saw chinks in the armor during their 'crossed red line' scramble to bomb Syria (into the stone age) and carve it up (for Israel)

    the people of both England and US said 'hell no', and that was something to witness for this cynic of cynics

    the net is having an effect, even if clumsy and inept

    were it not for the Internet and independent voices, Trump's campaign would have crashed and burned on takeoff

    (I'm not saying Trump is the messiah, I'm only saying that it seems like they (the MSM/PTB) hate his guts)

    so as bad as it is, (and it is very, very bad) there does seem to be some tiny, infinitesimal shred hope

    we are not yet at war with Russia
  88. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ron Unz

    Evidently, this whole Patton’s assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes...The whole of notion of “fighting Russians” in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.
     
    Well, I'm not a military expert on late WWII, but Patton's repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended. Therefore, he thought the Russians would have little chance of fighting more than a few weeks against America's massively-supplied military. Wasn't there some famous strategist who emphasized that while amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics? I can't say whether Patton's opinion was at all correct, but that's what he was arguing to everyone.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton's statements in 1945, it seemed like he'd half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America's most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.

    I really don't feel that "motive" is the weak point of the assassination hypothesis...

    but Patton’s repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended.

    Review of the operations around Berlin and prior to it–in Pomerania actually testify to diametrically opposite. As Glantz and House assess Red Army’s lines of communications throughout third (last) phase of WW II, they called it a “prodigious feats” in supplying a very sustained and massive Red Army’s offensive operations for months. The question here is purely speculative and….operational–could Red Army defend against Allies? Undoubtedly so, considering the scale and combat experience of the Red Army by 1945 Patton’s ideas sound amateurish at best, insane–at worst.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.

    Yes, Patton considered Russians to be Asiatic untermench. In reality, a lot of what Patton conveyed was a case of pure professional jealousy, the fact superbly described by David Eisenhower in his seminal historic dedication to his notable grandfather, Ike. Asiatic “motives” are not unique only to Patton, e.g. late Rear-Admiral Kemp Tolley (whom I had a privilege to talk to many times) who served as a deputy Naval Attache in USSR during 1942-44 also thought Russians to be somewhat Asiatic, which never prevented him from marrying a Russian woman, admire Admiral Arsenii Golovko (Northern Fleet Commander) and be very close friends with then superintendent of my Naval Academy Rear-Admiral Ramishvili. Tolley, certainly, didn’t want to fight US Soviet allies. What a difference.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton’s statements in 1945, it seemed like he’d half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America’s most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.

    That might be true (or not)–but my point was that Patton’s merits as a military leader, while not small, were greatly exaggerated for the narrative. Hence this never ending soap opera with the possibility of Allies fighting Red Army. Patton is mentioned only once by Hitler (he called him crazy cowboy) a rather humble standing with the enemy. The only “threat” Patton could possibly provide for the Red Army or USSR was his ridiculously big mouth. Militarily Patton wasn’t even close to the league of Bradley and Ike, let alone people such as Rokossovsky or Vasilevsky or, for that matter, Marshal. I don’t think communist “spies” really would have any reasons to kill a guy who was at most secondary to the overall Allied Victory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    IDK, look at this brilliantly planned strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum
  89. @Ron Unz

    Donovan had been fired and the OSS abolished well before Patton’s Dec. 8 accident.
     
    Yes. Wilcox describes at considerable length how Donovan was desperately attempting to maintain his OSS intelligence empire under Truman during early/mid-1945, and it was apparently around then that the alleged plans to eliminate Patton were put into motion. Indeed, Patton's first strange brush with death actually took place before the European war had even ended, in late April 1945.

    While I obviously can't be absolutely sure whether Wilcox's hypothesis is correct, he did spend ten years thoroughly researching his book, and I very much doubt that any such totally obvious flaws would have escaped his attention.

    There actually seems a great deal of evidence that Donovan originally began as something of a British agent, then may have possibly transferred his partial loyalties to Russia due to the powerful network of Communist agents near the top of the Roosevelt Administration during much of WWII.

    Donovan, like FDR, wanted US to help Britain before Pearl Harbor. And they both cooperated with Chuchill and Stalin to defeat Hitler. That does not make either of them a British or Russian agent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    FDR and people around him wanted the war with Hitler long before Stalin did. Stalin was very happy with his treaty with Hitler. All communists in world were forbidden to advocate war against Hitler. It was making many Jewish communists very unhappy. But after June 22, 1941 all Soviet agents in US administration and agent of influence in media went to high gear advocating war. It was then that Charles Lindbergh was assassinated by media. At last Brits, Jews and Communists had one common goal. Some historians suggested that the ultimatum delivered to Japan in November that Japan could not accept was partially written by Harry Dexter White who according to Venona files was a Soviet Agent. He worked for Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Does it matter. Did he do it as a Soviet Agent or as employee of State Treasury? It does not really matter. At that time objectives of Soviets and Zionists like Henry Morgenthau were pretty much the same.
  90. @MInnesota Mary
    This whole thing smells of Allen Dulles. I agree that McCarthy and Forrestal were likely done in at Bethesda Naval Hospital. I wish someone, like Stephen Kinzer, would do a thorough investigation on the death of James Forrestal and write a book about it.

    “I wish someone, like Stephen Kinzer, would do a thorough investigation on the death of James Forrestal and write a book about it.” – It won’t happen because his opposition to creation of Israel would have to be dealt with. The power and shenanigans of Zionist after WWII still await a mainstream historian. Did they intimidate Truman with attempted assassination? Did he accept $1 million in cash from them for his campaign? Jewish issues are touchy and most of the time remains a taboo. For example the issue of why the US went o war in the first place? What about the common belief that it was war for Jews? Even after the war during Nuremberg trial chief prosecutor (father of future senator Dodd) was still concerned about it. See his letter to his wife:

    “You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial — for their own sake.
    “For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again.

    “The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter –it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else.”

    I wonder if all letters written by Patton to his wife have been researched? Perhaps there one could find the clue about Patton’s intentions at the time of his death. Personally I do not believe that Patton could changed history vis-a-vis Soviet Union but he affect the narrative of the WWII that could have been detrimental to the creation of the state of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    There are plenty of books containing evidence that Correstal was murdered because of his anti Israel politics

    I've read several of them but I can't remember the names As I recall those books were in the UCLA and Stanford libraries It is pretty much accepted in the old mid century anti communist conservative circles.
  91. Does anyone know if there were senior American military men who more or less shared Patton’s views and went public with them in the immediate post-WWII period?

    Read More
  92. Interesting. For years I have had a sense–call it intuition– that the circumstances surrounding Patton’s death were suspicious, given his role in the liberation of Europe and his fierce anti-Communism. There was something there that didn’t add up. I feel the same way about the Lee H. Oswald death. Oswald was the only one who would know, so to speak, where the bodies would be buried (if there were any) and the next thing you know –he’s shot and killed. Hmmm!!In both cases there’s a ring of insincerity in the official version. Beyond that…not much else that can be said absent other information that may or may not still be out there.

    Read More
  93. @Planet Albany
    Donovan, like FDR, wanted US to help Britain before Pearl Harbor. And they both cooperated with Chuchill and Stalin to defeat Hitler. That does not make either of them a British or Russian agent.

    FDR and people around him wanted the war with Hitler long before Stalin did. Stalin was very happy with his treaty with Hitler. All communists in world were forbidden to advocate war against Hitler. It was making many Jewish communists very unhappy. But after June 22, 1941 all Soviet agents in US administration and agent of influence in media went to high gear advocating war. It was then that Charles Lindbergh was assassinated by media. At last Brits, Jews and Communists had one common goal. Some historians suggested that the ultimatum delivered to Japan in November that Japan could not accept was partially written by Harry Dexter White who according to Venona files was a Soviet Agent. He worked for Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Does it matter. Did he do it as a Soviet Agent or as employee of State Treasury? It does not really matter. At that time objectives of Soviets and Zionists like Henry Morgenthau were pretty much the same.

    Read More
  94. @Anonymous
    I have the book and it is astounding. Mr Unz you are right on the money to surmise it was a political hit by the communist sympathizers against a powerful anti-communist.

    The end of WWII was a charade. We, the USA, didn't really win it. Patton was right. He knew the USSR needed to be confronted and not given any territory!

    We are still living with the fallout in the form of the E.U. which was/is a Soviet project.

    The EU might be leftist utopianism, but a united and integrated Europe that incorporates the old Warsaw Pact client states is hardly something the Soviets would have backed.

    Read More
  95. A couple of other weird things happened at the end of WWII:

    1. Division of Korea – The Soviets rolled right over the Japanese in Manchuria and were advancing into the Korean peninsula when the Americans called and asked them to stop at the 38th parallel – and they did! The Soviets could have easily occupied all of Korea, but instead agreed to divide the country thereby setting up the Korea War.

    2. Division of Berlin – Berlin was entirely in the Soviet occupation zone. But for some dumb reason half the city of given to the Western Allies, creating a capitalist island within East Germany and also setting up more Cold War shenanigans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Berlin was entirely in the Soviet occupation zone. But for some dumb reason half the city of given to the Western Allies, creating a capitalist island within East Germany and also setting up more Cold War shenanigans."
     
    Berlin never stopped being the official capital city of Germany. Bonn was merely an administrative seat for the western part of the nation, but they kept their claim to half of it alive, and losing it would have been fatal for propaganda purposes, hence the airlift. To the Sovs' credit, they cut the city off, but they never tried to force the Western powers or government out, because in a way that would have delegitimised the DDR's claim to the city as the capital of Germany.
  96. @Anonymous
    I want to thank Ron Unz for his column on my book – a complete surprise to me. This is not just praise because the column was positive. I’m very appreciative of the depth and understanding of what I say in his column. I could not have written a better description of my work. He caught all the facts, suppositions and points – exactly as I wrote them. Target:Patton is an exhaustive examination of the proposition – not fact – that Patton was assassinated. No one, given what we know now, will ever be able to say positively what happened. I say no more. The reader must decide, not me. But I believe he was assassinated and I think I can safely say no one has ever investigated it more than myself, including Ladislaw Farago, who was one of my chief beginning sources.

    In Patton, Farago’s book made into a movie, he accepted the standard story that Patton’s death was an accident. Like so many historians later he didn’t take the time to really look into the death. But in Last Days of Patton, his in-depth exploration of those last days, he admits he’d been too fast and that there were serious indications that it wasn’t an accident. He laments he didn’t follow them but he had to leave it at that. He died shortly thereafter. But that, among others, was my invitation. You can read Target Patton for the rest; i.e., there is good reason, in my judgement, to believe he was assassinated. You be the judge – but not based on what you’ve heard and read before.

    I’ve gone through all the comments up to 72. I’ve not seen any objections that are not dealt with in the book. One of the problems with comment sections is that people assume on the basis of what they already believe that they have a good point. They assume their point is not dealt with in the book. But all the objections I’ve seen here are. Ron is again right in his answers to comments. I would basically answer the same way he does. But a few points I saw brought thoughts to my mind.

    “Patton was virulently anti-Semitic.” It’s true he had an on-going war with journalists, whom he saw as largely leftist and Jewish. Unlike most, he said so in public as well as private. But he also had Jews close to him and on his staff whom he loved and was unabashedly demonstrative about it. His chief of intelligence, Oscar Koch, was one. There are others named in my book. Patton once welcomed a group of black soldiers saying, (paraphrased) I don’t care what your color or your creed, if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother. That was Patton. He really didn’t care – unless you challenged him and then you got the fighting Patton – the man most responsible for kicking the Germans out of France and our best fighting general. I saw several comments that he wasn’t. I challenge anyone on that. It was common knowledge that when the Germans looked at the Allies, their first question was: Where’s Patton? They feared him beyond all others, including the Russians, whom, according to Patton, were down to ox carts to move their armies when he wanted to fight them.

    Patton also toured the concentration camps and saw all their horror. He did make disparaging remarks privately to his wife in his diary about the conditions and inmates. But never any way, as far as my research indicates, was he going to try and debunk the Holocaust. Wherever that came from I don’t know and I’ve read an awful lot about Patton. If someone said it, they are wrong or basing it on wrong information.

    Regarding Peter Hendrikx’s article. I know Peter. He helped me in one aspect of my research, providing valuable pictures and information about the accident site. I thank him in my book. I think he was quite upset when he saw the results. He thought I would be going along with the standard story. With all due respect, the main research Peter did was to interview the driver of the limousine in which Patton was injured. Horace Woodring always told the story he was supposed to tell and thus he gave Peter the impression that nothing was untoward. Woodring had died when I wrote my book but his family, as quoted in my book, knew a different truth. He always questioned the accident. There’s a story behind this too. Gen. Gay, Patton’s aide whom some suspect as being in on the plot, made a special point of contacting Woodring and telling him to stick to the standard story. I’m not sure that is in my book or whether I learned of it later. In any case, Woodring’s family are some of the many witnesses whom I interviewed and Peter did not. There is certainly Woodring’s testimony to Peter. But then there is the testimony of 100 of others and similarly numbered documents that refute the impression Peter got in his lone interview. Read the book. You will see what I mean.

    Finally, let me address the accusation against Donovan, that he was complicit. Donovan did win the Medal of Honor in WWI. He was a courageous soldier. He was also a mysterious figure who was very ambitious to the point of rashness. These aspects are fully explored in the book. And the accusation, building upon them, is not mine but that of an OSS assassin. He describes the meetings with Donovan, not me. This assassin is key in the book. Without him, the book could not have been written. Supporting him was Stephen Skubik, a CIC agent. Without those two eye witnesses, the book could not have been written. At least I would not have written it. But they are both very credible and their testimony has to be dealt with.

    What was the cost to Frenchmen of Patton’s, or more saliently, the Allied firebombers, of “kicking Germans out of France?”
    Allied firebombing killed more French civilians and destroyed more French civilian infrastructure than Germans did.

    But for Roosevelt’s determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn’t it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.

    Note to Alexander, re comment #86

    In my opinion it is so important to understand George H W Bush’s reasons for prosecuting the war in Persian Gulf 1990 – 1991 precisely because he pegged it to US aims in WWII:

    He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.

    SmoothieX12 argues forcefully that it was the Russians who defeated Hitler; and to defuse any whiff of antisemitism surrounding Patton, Robert K Wilcox noted that Patton’s attitude was “if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother.”

    A larger, and unresolved, even though never asked, question is, Why was it deemed necessary to “kill Germans?”

    Wilcox mentions that “Patton visited the concentration camps . . .” and was, of course appalled.

    But those visits took place well after 1933, and 1939, and 1940, and 1941, and 1944 — when David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv stated that they believed Auschwitz was a labor camp.
    As Timothy Snyder told an audience in Chicago a year or so ago,

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs

    Presumably, Patton’s “love like a brother” for anyone willing to kill Germans” was expressed before 1945, when he visited concentration camps.
    So where did that passion for killing Germans come from?

    In 1933, what was Germany’s crime such that influential members of the Jewish community organized to carry out an economic war against Germany with the intend of destroying Germany’s economy? In 1933, for what reasons did the American people have a need to “kill Germans?”

    In 1938, 1939, 1940, what casus belli did the USA have against Germany?

    In 1942 and 1943, what had Germans done to USA that was so grievous that only the unconditional surrender of Germany, and the continued brutalization of German civilians as well as German POWs/ disarmed enemy combatants, for over 3 years beyond that surrender, was sufficient to sate that primal urge to “kill Germans?”

    It’s broken record time — I will keep asking this until I get a good answer:

    In 2015 Robert Cohen wrote:

    Holocaust denial will remain a fringe issue. The documentation is secure in its veracity and overwhelming in its volume. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited/#sthash.3Bb8L3Q2.dpuf

    The implication is that it is not the case that “Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews.”

    Therefore, these questions demand answers:
    How and why did “today’s school children” come to think that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews;

    In 1933, 1936, 1939, 1940, what was “happening to the Jews” that required that “Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin foment war against Hitler;”
    Was anything that Hitler was doing to anybody in those years worse than what Stalin had done- and was doing- to kulaks, Ukrainians and Poles in 1932 – 1940?

    And if it is not true that “Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews,” as Cohen implies, then why did they?

    Why did Patton “love like a brother” anyone — even Jews and Negroes — who would kill Germans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Best comments so far-anyone care to address them?
    , @Rurik

    Why did Patton “love like a brother” anyone ... who would kill Germans?
     
    I suspect that Patton was above all things, a warrior, who love war and wanted to win it, once it was on.

    He was romantic about it. It was supposed to be done in an honorable but ferocious way. And that's how he rolled. Blood and guts.

    But then after raining death and destruction upon the Germans, who no one questions their fighting spirit, he came to have a grudging respect for the German people and their accomplishments and culture. He saw them as superior to the Soviet throngs of sub-human rapists (that I sometime harp on). He wanted the Germans to repudiate Nazism and join the Christian, civilized family of the West. But the Zio-banksters in New York and London had no such desire. They wanted their cruel and unforgiving boot upon the German neck, as did the Red Army Rapists.

    When Patton didn't serve the interests of the bankers who owned FDR and Churchill like the little bitches that they were, and treat the defeated and prostrate German people with hatred and contempt, they assassinated him
    , @MarkinLA
    But for Roosevelt’s determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn’t it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Could there be a negotiated surrender with Hitler when the main condition would be his imprisonment and execution. He obviously was willing to take the whole country with him.
    , @Ivan
    The obsession over "unconditional surrender" played straight into Stalin's hands. Within that framework Stalin could work out the post-war scenario with Soviet Communism dominant everywhere. What an extraordinarily evil genius that man was.
    , @Corvinus
    “GERMAN Jews were not threatened; they were actually protected by Hitler and Nazis — if you can find your way out of your own nether regions and consult a book or two, you may read Jewish authors who provide evidence for this fact.”

    Patently false. The Nuremberg Statues clearly stripped Jews of legal protections on his way to permanently remove them from German society, especially from the economy. The Decree on the Elimination of the Jews from Economic Life prohibited Jews from selling goods or services at an establishment of any kind.

    “In 1933, what was Germany’s crime such that influential members of the Jewish community organized to carry out an economic war against Germany with the intend of destroying Germany’s economy?

    That is a false characterization. German Jews were the backbone to a thriving economy prior to World War I who put themselves in a position, like any group before them, to weather future financial storms. While Jews were less or close to 1% of the total German population, they were overrepresented in business, commerce, and the public and private sector. But I thought individuals and groups ought to use their intelligence, business acumen, and connections to move upward in society, so why were Jews in particular targeted? Their 'race'.

    Even though throughout world history the upper classes, regardless of their race or ethnicity, have been the subject of intense scrutiny by those who are suffering in a recession or depression. These groups will be labeled as being "greedy", will be questioned for their"opulent lifestyles", will be portrayed as "thumb-nosing the poor and destitute". In this particular case, given Europe's past history of anti-Jewish sentiments during economic downturns, it made sense to use Jews as the scapegoats.

    Of course, the Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever ones mean skilled at their labor. But the Nazis ruthlessly exploited the citizen fear that Jews were "too smart for their own good".

    “In 1938, 1939, 1940, what casus belli did the USA have against Germany?”

    Germany’s invasion of sovereign countries which were dependent upon on American trade.

    “In 1942 and 1943, what had Germans done to USA that was so grievous that only the unconditional surrender of Germany, and the continued brutalization of German civilians as well as German POWs/ disarmed enemy combatants, for over 3 years beyond that surrender, was sufficient to sate that primal urge to “kill Germans?””



    1) The invasion and occupation of France, a long-standing American ally.
    2) The purposeful targeting of neutral American merchant ships heading to Great Britain.

    Under the guise of “protecting” Germany from future British and French “bullying” (despite their willingness to appease Hitler’s demands for more land), and under the assumption that German Jews were a barrier to future economic progress (which in essence was a combination of admiration and jealousy their financial prowess), Hitler put forth several nationalistic courses of action to extend the imperialistic zealotry of Otto Von Bismarck, using vengeance as the trigger.
    , @Incitatus

    “What was the cost to Frenchmen of Patton’s, or more saliently, the Allied firebombers, of “kicking Germans out of France?“Allied firebombing killed more French civilians and destroyed more French civilian infrastructure than Germans did.”
     
    How easily we forget, S2C. Here is what you said 18 days ago:

    “Have you ever thought about the choices French women had to make about which of their children to save when the Allies bombed France, killing 70,000 French civilians?“
    -s2c 5aug16 #162
    http://www.unz.com/article/neocon-like-groupthink-dominates-both-conventions/
     
    Personally I like the “French women” vs. “Frenchman” approach - it solicits more sympathy. As far as Allies killing more French civilians than the (poor, poor) Nazis, here is what I responded:

    “350,000 French civilians died in WW2. If one accepts your 70,000 figure, that leaves 280,000 dead due to your meister raße. Let alone the 90,000 French soldiers killed, 200,000 wounded, and 1.5 million imprisoned as POWs 1940-45. Or the forced labor sent to places like Dora-Mittelbau, and the looting of everything from major art collections to industrial equipment.”

    I wasn’t first in my math class, but I think French casualties due to German action far exceed those lost to Allied activity. In Caen and other Norman venues I can’t recall a single plaque honoring ‘German defenders’ of French airspace.

    Perhaps your next iteration (‘housewives’ would be a nice touch) can mourn the fraction of civilians killed by Allied action in Belgium (warning - 76,000 total dead ), the Netherlands (87,000 dead), Norway ( 8,200 dead), Greece (171,800 dead), Italy (153,200 dead), and - wait for it - Poland (5,820,000 dead) and Ukraine (3,700,000 dead). Naturally some in the last two venues can be attributed to the USSR, but still, an impressive record of death in Adolf’s War (apologies to David Irving). Oddly, I doubt one will find any plaques honoring ‘German defenders’ of their airspace.

    “...isn’t it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?”
     
    Anything is possible. Hitler could have “negotiated with” rather than have invaded Poland and a dozen other countries. Negotiation led to the Versailles Treaty in 1919. Hitler’s record in keeping that treaty is less than stellar (the Rhineland, rearmament, Anschluß, etc). Negotiation at München in 1938 led to Nazi invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1939. So who was dependable interlocutor? How could anyone trust someone who broke as many treaties as he signed?

    BTW Thanks on Wawro - have ‘A Mad Catastrophe’ and am looking forward to it.
  97. @OilcanFloyd
    The claim that Patton was assassinated by the U.S. government because he wanted to fight the Russians is something that I've heard many times. The assassination part was covered in the Patton movie from the 70s, I think. If you watch late-night television, you might catch the old Leonard Nemoy show "In Search Of," which covered this topic.

    The Patton assassination is a common rumor. I wonder if McArthur feared a similar fate?

    Growing up, I also heard rumors that Patton was killed by the US govt, because he wanted to go on and fight the Soviet Union. I heard that from my father, who fought in WW II, and from a friend whose uncle was under Patton’s command.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    @Antiwar7

    Judging by the age of the men that I heard the rumor from, the story has been around for a long time. Like you, I heard the Patton assassination story from military men of the same age and a bit younger than your father. As far as I know, none of the men I knew were in any position to know what happened, but they truly believed that elements of the U.S. government had Patton killed. Is it just me, or were military men of the WWII, Korean and Vietnam eras much more cynical towards the government than today's men and women in uniform?
  98. @Regnum Nostrum
    I doubt that story very much. Here are the facts.

    The car with three people in it was travelling slow. Patton and his Chief of Staff, Major General Hobart Gay, and a driver Horace Woodring at the wheel. Patton and Gay in the back seat. Somewhere along the road they collide with a truck. It is a minor collision during which only General Patton gets hurt and rather seriously. Two of his vertebrae were broken but he lived for another 12 days. If it had been an assassination it would have been the first one I know of which relied on chance.

    Here are the inconsistencies, speculations, rumours, wild guesses and such.

    The agent, Douglas Bazata, keeps changing his story. In one version he claims to organize the colision and shooting Patton in the neck with low velocity projectile the result of which were two broken vertebrae. Well when did he shoot? He could not have done it before the collision and he could not have done it after the collision. To hit the neck right at the moment of the collision is very unlikely because the back window is quite small. It gets better. In another version he says that he shot Patten from the side. Then he announced in front of 450 invited guests, nearly all high-ranking ex-members of the OSS at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC the 25th of September, 1979. that he was not the actual killer but knew who killed him and that he was poisoned in the hospital in which he was recuperating. He claims that the poisoners were agents of NKVD. In another version he even told Wilcox that he was finally able to get a message to the general that he was the target of an assassination plot, but a short time before Patton was set to leave Germany for the United States, the road crash took place on Dec. 21, 1945. Nothing of this makes sense. Why arrange an accident so that we can brake someone's neck with a low velocity projectile? There are simpler ways to get rid of somebody.

    The Russians had absolutely no reason to assassinate him. Patton was about to retire and his animosity towards Russians at this stage could not do any harm. I also believe that the US government had no reason to assassinate him just because he had some disagreements concerning policy.

    “I also believe that the US government had no reason to assassinate him just because he had some disagreements concerning policy.”

    Unless, of course, they were trying to send a strong message to the entire General staff. We had a lot of larger-than-life types walking around those days who could have completely unsettled the control of the show if they had wanted to.

    Read More
  99. @Chuck
    A couple of other weird things happened at the end of WWII:

    1. Division of Korea - The Soviets rolled right over the Japanese in Manchuria and were advancing into the Korean peninsula when the Americans called and asked them to stop at the 38th parallel - and they did! The Soviets could have easily occupied all of Korea, but instead agreed to divide the country thereby setting up the Korea War.

    2. Division of Berlin - Berlin was entirely in the Soviet occupation zone. But for some dumb reason half the city of given to the Western Allies, creating a capitalist island within East Germany and also setting up more Cold War shenanigans.

    “Berlin was entirely in the Soviet occupation zone. But for some dumb reason half the city of given to the Western Allies, creating a capitalist island within East Germany and also setting up more Cold War shenanigans.”

    Berlin never stopped being the official capital city of Germany. Bonn was merely an administrative seat for the western part of the nation, but they kept their claim to half of it alive, and losing it would have been fatal for propaganda purposes, hence the airlift. To the Sovs’ credit, they cut the city off, but they never tried to force the Western powers or government out, because in a way that would have delegitimised the DDR’s claim to the city as the capital of Germany.

    Read More
  100. Suppose what “people” think depends on your background.
    During my decade of service, it was commonly understood among officers that Patton had been assassinated for the reasons stated here.
    I worked in NATO joint command for 3 years, the German officers thought the same thing, with even more certainty in my experience.
    Funny how certain info just gets dropped down the memory hole by media and academia, even when people close to the info all know and agree on the truth.

    Read More
  101. But from my perspective, the likelihood of an assassination, almost certainly with the active involvement of top American officials, seems overwhelming.

    Not really.

    But the fact that the American media has completely failed to report these revelations is absolutely undeniable.

    Yes. And the media has done a good job not printing the outlandish conspiracy theories. Maybe they aren’t so careful with foreign leaders, I couldn’t say. But in this case, they seem to have gotten it right.

    Which also speaks to why there has been no point by point rebuttal of Wilcox’s book. Who cares? This book has been out for 8 years and no historians have touched it. It seems to be written for people who have some ideological interest in a theoretical Patton assassination, rather than written for historians.

    Still, here’s some interesting info I found:

    Apparently, no one ever hinted that Patton was assassinated until 1979, months after a movie (Brass Target) came out with a fictionalized plot.

    Douglas Bazata, a former OSS (the forerunner of the CIA) assassin who was bitter and in need of money. In 1979, 35 years after the war, he started to write his dairies about his service in the OSS. In October 1979, ten months after the release of the movie “Brass Target”, he went public in the obscure right wing weekly “The Spotlight”, headlined “I Was Paid to Kill Patton”. This story was incredible, with many factual errors and lacking any proof of his outrageous claims.

    It goes on, here:

    http://www.heroesatmargraten.com/the-death-of-general-george-s-patton.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Still, here’s some interesting info I found:

    Apparently, no one ever hinted that Patton was assassinated until 1979, months after a movie (Brass Target) came out with a fictionalized plot.
     
    Well, the argument you're quoting would be more effective if it weren't factually incorrect, as I'd already pointed out in a previous comment upthread:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1537910

    Furthermore, TARGET PATTON author Robert K. Wilcox had also left a long and detailed comment regarding the evidence provided by individual you cite:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1538062

    Commenters such as yourself who appear too lazy to bother reading previous comments before leaving your own redundant ones hardly enhance their credibility on a complex historical question such as this.
  102. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SolontoCroesus
    What was the cost to Frenchmen of Patton's, or more saliently, the Allied firebombers, of "kicking Germans out of France?"
    Allied firebombing killed more French civilians and destroyed more French civilian infrastructure than Germans did.

    But for Roosevelt's determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn't it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.
     
    Note to Alexander, re comment #86

    In my opinion it is so important to understand George H W Bush's reasons for prosecuting the war in Persian Gulf 1990 - 1991 precisely because he pegged it to US aims in WWII:

    He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.
     
    SmoothieX12 argues forcefully that it was the Russians who defeated Hitler; and to defuse any whiff of antisemitism surrounding Patton, Robert K Wilcox noted that Patton's attitude was "if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother."

    A larger, and unresolved, even though never asked, question is, Why was it deemed necessary to "kill Germans?"

    Wilcox mentions that "Patton visited the concentration camps . . ." and was, of course appalled.

    But those visits took place well after 1933, and 1939, and 1940, and 1941, and 1944 -- when David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv stated that they believed Auschwitz was a labor camp.
    As Timothy Snyder told an audience in Chicago a year or so ago,

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs
     
    Presumably, Patton's "love like a brother" for anyone willing to kill Germans" was expressed before 1945, when he visited concentration camps.
    So where did that passion for killing Germans come from?

    In 1933, what was Germany's crime such that influential members of the Jewish community organized to carry out an economic war against Germany with the intend of destroying Germany's economy? In 1933, for what reasons did the American people have a need to "kill Germans?"

    In 1938, 1939, 1940, what casus belli did the USA have against Germany?

    In 1942 and 1943, what had Germans done to USA that was so grievous that only the unconditional surrender of Germany, and the continued brutalization of German civilians as well as German POWs/ disarmed enemy combatants, for over 3 years beyond that surrender, was sufficient to sate that primal urge to "kill Germans?"

    It's broken record time -- I will keep asking this until I get a good answer:

    In 2015 Robert Cohen wrote:

    Holocaust denial will remain a fringe issue. The documentation is secure in its veracity and overwhelming in its volume. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited/#sthash.3Bb8L3Q2.dpuf
     
    The implication is that it is not the case that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews."

    Therefore, these questions demand answers:
    How and why did "today's school children" come to think that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews;

    In 1933, 1936, 1939, 1940, what was "happening to the Jews" that required that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin foment war against Hitler;"
    Was anything that Hitler was doing to anybody in those years worse than what Stalin had done- and was doing- to kulaks, Ukrainians and Poles in 1932 - 1940?

    And if it is not true that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews," as Cohen implies, then why did they?

    Why did Patton "love like a brother" anyone -- even Jews and Negroes -- who would kill Germans?

    Best comments so far-anyone care to address them?

    Read More
  103. @Anonymous
    I have the book and it is astounding. Mr Unz you are right on the money to surmise it was a political hit by the communist sympathizers against a powerful anti-communist.

    The end of WWII was a charade. We, the USA, didn't really win it. Patton was right. He knew the USSR needed to be confronted and not given any territory!

    We are still living with the fallout in the form of the E.U. which was/is a Soviet project.

    He knew the USSR needed to be confronted and not given any territory!

    From what I have read, the Red Army at the end of WWII had 250 divisions while the US had 99 and Britain 49. I suspect Patton wasn’t as aware of this as FDR was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    At the end of WWII FDR was dead.

    That's more than a correction your comment; it raises the question, how was the (alleged??) assassination of Patton implicated in decisions and promises made by FDR to Stalin?

    Susan Liebman Butler's research into the correspondence between Roosevelt and Stalin suggests some answers. One example: according to Butler, apparently, FDR made a deal with Stalin that Stalin would invade Manchuria if USA bombed Japan.

    In a talk at the Roosevelt Library this exchange took place:

    Question: “You said that Roosevelt feared no nation. If he felt comfortable having the USSR on his side.
    Butler: Yes. Totally comfortable.
    --- and you think that if he had lived and they argued over the territories after the war, they would have butted heads?
    Butler: Well, Roosevelt died and we dropped the bomb. On the day second bomb was dropped Stalin kept his commitment to FDR that three months after VE day the Red Army would invade China. “Because we dropped the bomb, on the next day a million Russian soldiers invaded Manchuria and engaged the Japanese.
    We are going to learn a lot of things as we look at the FACTS of the second world war.”
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?190721-1/book-discussion-dear-mr-stalin
     
    Now, supposedly Truman was not aware that the USA had an atom bomb, so it would be useful to know who was counseling Truman to fulfill FDR's pact, and what other deals FDR had made, and who knew about them.
  104. @Boris

    But from my perspective, the likelihood of an assassination, almost certainly with the active involvement of top American officials, seems overwhelming.
     
    Not really.

    But the fact that the American media has completely failed to report these revelations is absolutely undeniable.
     
    Yes. And the media has done a good job not printing the outlandish conspiracy theories. Maybe they aren't so careful with foreign leaders, I couldn't say. But in this case, they seem to have gotten it right.

    Which also speaks to why there has been no point by point rebuttal of Wilcox's book. Who cares? This book has been out for 8 years and no historians have touched it. It seems to be written for people who have some ideological interest in a theoretical Patton assassination, rather than written for historians.

    Still, here's some interesting info I found:

    Apparently, no one ever hinted that Patton was assassinated until 1979, months after a movie (Brass Target) came out with a fictionalized plot.


    Douglas Bazata, a former OSS (the forerunner of the CIA) assassin who was bitter and in need of money. In 1979, 35 years after the war, he started to write his dairies about his service in the OSS. In October 1979, ten months after the release of the movie “Brass Target”, he went public in the obscure right wing weekly “The Spotlight”, headlined “I Was Paid to Kill Patton”. This story was incredible, with many factual errors and lacking any proof of his outrageous claims.
     
    It goes on, here:
    http://www.heroesatmargraten.com/the-death-of-general-george-s-patton.html

    Still, here’s some interesting info I found:

    Apparently, no one ever hinted that Patton was assassinated until 1979, months after a movie (Brass Target) came out with a fictionalized plot.

    Well, the argument you’re quoting would be more effective if it weren’t factually incorrect, as I’d already pointed out in a previous comment upthread:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1537910

    Furthermore, TARGET PATTON author Robert K. Wilcox had also left a long and detailed comment regarding the evidence provided by individual you cite:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1538062

    Commenters such as yourself who appear too lazy to bother reading previous comments before leaving your own redundant ones hardly enhance their credibility on a complex historical question such as this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    Commenters such as yourself who appear too lazy to bother reading previous comments before leaving your own redundant ones hardly enhance their credibility on a complex historical question such as this.
     
    Yeah, guilty as charged. I did a search for "Brass Target" (saw only Verymuchalive's comment, #18) and the name of the site the response appears upon, which seems more than due diligence for a comment.

    Speaking of due diligence, if you are really interested in "a complex historical question such as this" then it might be worthwhile to find some actual historians who find the tale implausible. Perhaps Wilcox is onto something, and even the critique I (lazily) linked praises him for his thoroughness. Hopefully, history professors are not in on the conspiracy.

    As for my credibility, I have none at all, but still about the same amount as an "assassin" who fesses up three decades after the fact, but less than a year after a film about such a plot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there's none to be found that I can see.
  105. @SolontoCroesus
    What was the cost to Frenchmen of Patton's, or more saliently, the Allied firebombers, of "kicking Germans out of France?"
    Allied firebombing killed more French civilians and destroyed more French civilian infrastructure than Germans did.

    But for Roosevelt's determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn't it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.
     
    Note to Alexander, re comment #86

    In my opinion it is so important to understand George H W Bush's reasons for prosecuting the war in Persian Gulf 1990 - 1991 precisely because he pegged it to US aims in WWII:

    He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.
     
    SmoothieX12 argues forcefully that it was the Russians who defeated Hitler; and to defuse any whiff of antisemitism surrounding Patton, Robert K Wilcox noted that Patton's attitude was "if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother."

    A larger, and unresolved, even though never asked, question is, Why was it deemed necessary to "kill Germans?"

    Wilcox mentions that "Patton visited the concentration camps . . ." and was, of course appalled.

    But those visits took place well after 1933, and 1939, and 1940, and 1941, and 1944 -- when David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv stated that they believed Auschwitz was a labor camp.
    As Timothy Snyder told an audience in Chicago a year or so ago,

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs
     
    Presumably, Patton's "love like a brother" for anyone willing to kill Germans" was expressed before 1945, when he visited concentration camps.
    So where did that passion for killing Germans come from?

    In 1933, what was Germany's crime such that influential members of the Jewish community organized to carry out an economic war against Germany with the intend of destroying Germany's economy? In 1933, for what reasons did the American people have a need to "kill Germans?"

    In 1938, 1939, 1940, what casus belli did the USA have against Germany?

    In 1942 and 1943, what had Germans done to USA that was so grievous that only the unconditional surrender of Germany, and the continued brutalization of German civilians as well as German POWs/ disarmed enemy combatants, for over 3 years beyond that surrender, was sufficient to sate that primal urge to "kill Germans?"

    It's broken record time -- I will keep asking this until I get a good answer:

    In 2015 Robert Cohen wrote:

    Holocaust denial will remain a fringe issue. The documentation is secure in its veracity and overwhelming in its volume. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited/#sthash.3Bb8L3Q2.dpuf
     
    The implication is that it is not the case that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews."

    Therefore, these questions demand answers:
    How and why did "today's school children" come to think that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews;

    In 1933, 1936, 1939, 1940, what was "happening to the Jews" that required that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin foment war against Hitler;"
    Was anything that Hitler was doing to anybody in those years worse than what Stalin had done- and was doing- to kulaks, Ukrainians and Poles in 1932 - 1940?

    And if it is not true that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews," as Cohen implies, then why did they?

    Why did Patton "love like a brother" anyone -- even Jews and Negroes -- who would kill Germans?

    Why did Patton “love like a brother” anyone … who would kill Germans?

    I suspect that Patton was above all things, a warrior, who love war and wanted to win it, once it was on.

    He was romantic about it. It was supposed to be done in an honorable but ferocious way. And that’s how he rolled. Blood and guts.

    But then after raining death and destruction upon the Germans, who no one questions their fighting spirit, he came to have a grudging respect for the German people and their accomplishments and culture. He saw them as superior to the Soviet throngs of sub-human rapists (that I sometime harp on). He wanted the Germans to repudiate Nazism and join the Christian, civilized family of the West. But the Zio-banksters in New York and London had no such desire. They wanted their cruel and unforgiving boot upon the German neck, as did the Red Army Rapists.

    When Patton didn’t serve the interests of the bankers who owned FDR and Churchill like the little bitches that they were, and treat the defeated and prostrate German people with hatred and contempt, they assassinated him

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Agree with almost everything you wrote, Rurik, esp. that "Patton was a romantic about war . . . fought in an honorable but ferocious way." R H S Stolfi argues that Hitler was much the same -- Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.

    But there's an internal contradiction in this statement:

    He wanted the Germans to repudiate Nazism and join the Christian, civilized family of the West.
     
    It was the "Christian, civilized family of the West" that firebombed German (and Japanese) civilians; that allowed Zhukov's army to run amok and rape German women; that kept Germans in a state of homelessness and hunger for ~two years until Marshall said Enough; that set up kangaroo courts to kill those "honorable but ferocious German warriors;" and that carried out the psychological re-programming of Germans -- and the concomitant market-making -- through the Books as Weapons program under Eisenhower's command, directed (initially) by James P Warburg.

    In my (jaundiced) view, WWII was a religious war against Christianity, or at least a war that pitted Anglican Christianity against German Christianity, and Jewishness in league with Anglicanism against German Christianity. I deduce this notion from the three categories that Lindbergh named:

    The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp
     
    FDR was raised and educated in staunchly Episcopalian tradition; as Lynne Olsen details in "Those Angry Days," British propagandists sent over a thousand agents to the USA to incite the American masses to war; the Jewish cohort is amply represented by influential Jewish leaders who were very close to Roosevelt; they include Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his Communist spy-sidekick-brain Harry Dexter White, Stephen Wise, Louis Brandeis, assorted Warburgs, Lehmans and Rosenwalds.

    Also significant in making the case that the war with Germany was a war against the "Christian, civilized family of the West" is Suzannah Heschel's strident text titled The Aryan Jesus:
    Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.

    Heschel's work is the only source, in English, that I have been able to find where the work of Walther Grundmann is mentioned. Grundmann led a movement in Germany that attempted to define Christianity, and Jesus, divorced from a Hebrew or Old Testament matrix. Heschel deems this effort antisemitic, which, of course, it is, in once sense: European Christianity is not Semitic (as someone noted recently in a different thread, most Ashkenazi are not Semitic either; genetically, they are "60% European." Now I'm dizzy.)

    In one of Churchill's speeches he declared himself to be the defender of "Christian civilization." Perhaps he was drunk when the Sermon on the Mount was preached.

    Many, many of Germany's great and historic Christian churches were destroyed or damaged -- Allied bombers were capable of sparing certain Ford plants in Germany, so we have to assume there was no care given to protecting the holy places of Christianity in Germany.

    I think a compelling case could be made that there was far more Christianity practiced in Germany and by Nazis than by the "Christian Western Allies."
  106. @Outwest
    The Soviets were, if anything, less respectful of human rights than the Germans –not meaning to speak up for either, just comparing. A captured Soviet soldier that escaped went to the Gulag as being contaminated.

    Also, you may want to check the tremendous amount of strategic war materials the U.S. shipped to the Soviets. Aluminum, Fuel TRUCKS and finished war equipment. P-39s and P-40 held the line against the Luftwaffe until the Soviets could utilize the raw materials for their own planes and other equipment.

    A bit of coordination with Japan and Germany would have won easily. No U.S. and it’s a tossup.

    Not true.

    Most of the war materiel was completely USSR manufactured. We did send them a lot of machine tools, trucks and canned food. Russia flooded the US in the 90s with old home guard Mosin-Nagants which were the standard rifle of the Soviet Army (as well as captured German K-98s). They had their own unique cartridges and thus their own rifles, pistols, machine guns, tanks, artillery, and anti-tank guns. They had their own aircraft. A few were quite well regarded and known by aircraft aficionados. They also had what many consider the best overall tank in the war – far superior to the Sherman.

    What little we sent them had absolutely NO chance of making a dent against the Germans. When the Germans captured a Russian army in the beginning of the war almost everything was of Russian origin.

    This “we supplied the Russians” meme is so exaggerated by people in the US. The great film “The Unknown War” stated that total US support for the USSR was less than 5%. Not much got through until the wolf-packs were neutralized.

    http://ussr.wikia.com/wiki/Mosin_Nagant

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=134

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=38

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483223/

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    [Cluttering up a comment thread by inserting enormously long Wikipedia quotes probably isn't good behavior.]

    During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

    An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.
     

    But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.
     

    Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer. In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead.
     

    According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).

    Given the disruption to Soviet production and Red Army losses, the Soviet Union was understandably eager to put British armor into action as soon as possible. According to Biriukov’s service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.
     

    The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.
     

    A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.
     

    Lend-Lease aid did not “save” the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow. But the speed at which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union, and at which the Soviet Union was able to put foreign equipment into frontline use, is still an underappreciated part of this story. During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.
     
    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[40][41]
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR
    , @AnotherLover
    Are you aware of Antony Sutton's take on the Soviet's production capacity? He wrote a series of books on the topic that cover the chronolgy from 1917 to 1965. The first is Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930.
    Feel free to pick up a copy on Amazon (just click the link -- trust me :)
    https://www.amazon.com/Western-Technology-Soviet-Economic-Development/dp/0817919015
    And, after you've had a good laugh, go ahead and read the darn thing at archive.org:
    https://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1917-1930
    https://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1930-1945
    https://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1945-1965
    I haven't read all this, to be sure, but I've heard Antony's various synopses. You might find something of value.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Lend Lease
    to Russia From Major Jordan' Diaries (NY: Harcourt, Brace, 1952)

     

    A lot were materials they couldn't manufacture themselves because they lacked the technical skills.
  107. @MarkinLA
    He knew the USSR needed to be confronted and not given any territory!

    From what I have read, the Red Army at the end of WWII had 250 divisions while the US had 99 and Britain 49. I suspect Patton wasn't as aware of this as FDR was.

    At the end of WWII FDR was dead.

    That’s more than a correction your comment; it raises the question, how was the (alleged??) assassination of Patton implicated in decisions and promises made by FDR to Stalin?

    Susan Liebman Butler’s research into the correspondence between Roosevelt and Stalin suggests some answers. One example: according to Butler, apparently, FDR made a deal with Stalin that Stalin would invade Manchuria if USA bombed Japan.

    In a talk at the Roosevelt Library this exchange took place:

    Question: “You said that Roosevelt feared no nation. If he felt comfortable having the USSR on his side.
    Butler: Yes. Totally comfortable.
    — and you think that if he had lived and they argued over the territories after the war, they would have butted heads?
    Butler: Well, Roosevelt died and we dropped the bomb. On the day second bomb was dropped Stalin kept his commitment to FDR that three months after VE day the Red Army would invade China. “Because we dropped the bomb, on the next day a million Russian soldiers invaded Manchuria and engaged the Japanese.
    We are going to learn a lot of things as we look at the FACTS of the second world war.”
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?190721-1/book-discussion-dear-mr-stalin

    Now, supposedly Truman was not aware that the USA had an atom bomb, so it would be useful to know who was counseling Truman to fulfill FDR’s pact, and what other deals FDR had made, and who knew about them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    At the end of WWII FDR was dead.

    Yes, I know. My answer was a little bit of snark about the possibility that Patton thought too highly of himself and his army's capabilities.
    , @MarkinLA
    Now I remember why I mentioned FDR. it is because so many people think FDR "gave" away eastern Europe to Stalin because FDR was a fool or some kind of Soviet stooge and the quote I highlighted mentioned not needing to give the Soviets any territory.
  108. @SolontoCroesus
    What was the cost to Frenchmen of Patton's, or more saliently, the Allied firebombers, of "kicking Germans out of France?"
    Allied firebombing killed more French civilians and destroyed more French civilian infrastructure than Germans did.

    But for Roosevelt's determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn't it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.
     
    Note to Alexander, re comment #86

    In my opinion it is so important to understand George H W Bush's reasons for prosecuting the war in Persian Gulf 1990 - 1991 precisely because he pegged it to US aims in WWII:

    He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.
     
    SmoothieX12 argues forcefully that it was the Russians who defeated Hitler; and to defuse any whiff of antisemitism surrounding Patton, Robert K Wilcox noted that Patton's attitude was "if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother."

    A larger, and unresolved, even though never asked, question is, Why was it deemed necessary to "kill Germans?"

    Wilcox mentions that "Patton visited the concentration camps . . ." and was, of course appalled.

    But those visits took place well after 1933, and 1939, and 1940, and 1941, and 1944 -- when David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv stated that they believed Auschwitz was a labor camp.
    As Timothy Snyder told an audience in Chicago a year or so ago,

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs
     
    Presumably, Patton's "love like a brother" for anyone willing to kill Germans" was expressed before 1945, when he visited concentration camps.
    So where did that passion for killing Germans come from?

    In 1933, what was Germany's crime such that influential members of the Jewish community organized to carry out an economic war against Germany with the intend of destroying Germany's economy? In 1933, for what reasons did the American people have a need to "kill Germans?"

    In 1938, 1939, 1940, what casus belli did the USA have against Germany?

    In 1942 and 1943, what had Germans done to USA that was so grievous that only the unconditional surrender of Germany, and the continued brutalization of German civilians as well as German POWs/ disarmed enemy combatants, for over 3 years beyond that surrender, was sufficient to sate that primal urge to "kill Germans?"

    It's broken record time -- I will keep asking this until I get a good answer:

    In 2015 Robert Cohen wrote:

    Holocaust denial will remain a fringe issue. The documentation is secure in its veracity and overwhelming in its volume. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited/#sthash.3Bb8L3Q2.dpuf
     
    The implication is that it is not the case that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews."

    Therefore, these questions demand answers:
    How and why did "today's school children" come to think that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews;

    In 1933, 1936, 1939, 1940, what was "happening to the Jews" that required that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin foment war against Hitler;"
    Was anything that Hitler was doing to anybody in those years worse than what Stalin had done- and was doing- to kulaks, Ukrainians and Poles in 1932 - 1940?

    And if it is not true that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews," as Cohen implies, then why did they?

    Why did Patton "love like a brother" anyone -- even Jews and Negroes -- who would kill Germans?

    But for Roosevelt’s determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn’t it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Could there be a negotiated surrender with Hitler when the main condition would be his imprisonment and execution. He obviously was willing to take the whole country with him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Hitler and the NSDAP made numerous peace overtures.

    Would the world have been a better place if a peace deal had been reached that included the imprisonment and execution of Josef Stalin? According to Zbigniev Brzezinski, Stalin's slaughters far exceeded any killing actually done by the Nazis, and Stalin kept millions in oppressive conditions for decades, vs. Hitler's scant 5 years a-warring.
    , @Rudel
    "He obviously was willing to take the whole country with him."

    This, of course, had nothing to do with the Allied demand for unconditional surrender, and the genocidal (((Morgenthau Plan)))...
  109. @Ron Unz

    Evidently, this whole Patton’s assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes...The whole of notion of “fighting Russians” in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.
     
    Well, I'm not a military expert on late WWII, but Patton's repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended. Therefore, he thought the Russians would have little chance of fighting more than a few weeks against America's massively-supplied military. Wasn't there some famous strategist who emphasized that while amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics? I can't say whether Patton's opinion was at all correct, but that's what he was arguing to everyone.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton's statements in 1945, it seemed like he'd half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America's most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.

    I really don't feel that "motive" is the weak point of the assassination hypothesis...

    Patton’s repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended.

    As compared to the US where every ounce of fuel had to be brought in by ships? Wasn’t one of Ike’s biggest problems deciding which of his hungry chicks was to get the worm next? By that I mean Patton’s army was supposedly halted just outside of Germany because they overran their supply lines because the operation in norther Europe were given priority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    As compared to the US where every ounce of fuel had to be brought in by ships? Wasn’t one of Ike’s biggest problems deciding which of his hungry chicks was to get the worm next?
     
    That's a reasonable point, though since (I think) the Western allies had total superiority in strategic air power and naval transport, I'd assume that by 1945 their supply situation was much stronger and less vulnerable than that of the Soviets. But I don't claim any military expertise in these matters.

    However, my point wasn't the reality, but what Patton firmly believed and told everybody. Whether he was correct or not, I can't say.
  110. @DavidH
    The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. The United States and Britain helped.

    The United States suffered about 200,000 fatalities in combat against the Nazis. The Soviet Union lost around 27,000,000 dead, military and civilian. They deserve respect. They don't get any in this article.

    Of course there were many Soviet sympathizers in the U.S. government in 1945. We were allies.

    Did Patton want to betray an ally? If he did, I don't give a damn about how he died.

    so I guess you are mad that Patton figured out we fought WWII to save the communists the jewish invention . Patton saw to late that we fought the wrong people. all these communist groupies here saying the soviets defeated the Germans when any one knows their supply lines were to long and it was the winter that did it. The communists could have never beaten a supplied German army . our communist loving govt sent millions of tons of steel to russia being they had allies in roosevelt administration that was loaded with bolshevik jews. Patton said the Russians lived off the land coming down and there was nothing left for them if they were to be pushed back

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The communists could have never beaten a supplied German army

    Not true. Look at the statistics, 80% of Germany's losses occurred on the eastern front. The Russians had to fight in winter too. On a rifle to rifle or soldier to soldier basis, the Germans were the finest army in the world. However as Stalin has been claimed to have said: "Quantity has a quality all its own" or as was supposedly written by a German officer to his wife about the invasion of Russia (from the documentary "The World At War"): This is like an elephant attacking an army of ants, at each step hundreds are killed, but in the end the elephant is eaten to the bone".

  111. Patton was only considered anti-Semitic because he trenchantly described the disgusting and unsanitary behavior of the Eastern European Jews in the refugee camps.

    It is quite interesting how so many of the Jews allegedly “Holocausted” all of a sudden started to pour into Western Europe once the war was over. Given time, Patton, like the British General Morgan, would most likely have debunked the entire myth of the “gas chambers” and the “Holocaust” (the real holocaust was the fire bombing of Dresden – literally). 6 million Jews were not killed by the Germans; there never were more than 4.5 million Jews under the control of the Third Reich at its high water mark after the initiation of Fall Barbarossa in 1941-1942. As a population, Jews suffered no more, and probably much less, than the goy population of the belligerents in Europe. Far more French and Italian civilians were killed (by Allied bombing) and raped by Allied forces than by German ones.

    And Patton was disgusted by what he termed the “Semitic” justice of evicting Germans and giving their homes to Jews.

    He also knew that the Western Allies had aided and abetted the killing off of what he termed, “the best race in Europe”.

    Patton’s crimes were thought crimes, and his candid statements of truth were threats to the Atlanticist Zionist hegemons, who knew they needed a somnolent U.S. domestic population in order to catapult the myth of the “Good War” into the founding mythology of NATO hegemony.

    Read More
  112. @SolontoCroesus
    At the end of WWII FDR was dead.

    That's more than a correction your comment; it raises the question, how was the (alleged??) assassination of Patton implicated in decisions and promises made by FDR to Stalin?

    Susan Liebman Butler's research into the correspondence between Roosevelt and Stalin suggests some answers. One example: according to Butler, apparently, FDR made a deal with Stalin that Stalin would invade Manchuria if USA bombed Japan.

    In a talk at the Roosevelt Library this exchange took place:

    Question: “You said that Roosevelt feared no nation. If he felt comfortable having the USSR on his side.
    Butler: Yes. Totally comfortable.
    --- and you think that if he had lived and they argued over the territories after the war, they would have butted heads?
    Butler: Well, Roosevelt died and we dropped the bomb. On the day second bomb was dropped Stalin kept his commitment to FDR that three months after VE day the Red Army would invade China. “Because we dropped the bomb, on the next day a million Russian soldiers invaded Manchuria and engaged the Japanese.
    We are going to learn a lot of things as we look at the FACTS of the second world war.”
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?190721-1/book-discussion-dear-mr-stalin
     
    Now, supposedly Truman was not aware that the USA had an atom bomb, so it would be useful to know who was counseling Truman to fulfill FDR's pact, and what other deals FDR had made, and who knew about them.

    At the end of WWII FDR was dead.

    Yes, I know. My answer was a little bit of snark about the possibility that Patton thought too highly of himself and his army’s capabilities.

    Read More
  113. @MarkinLA
    Not true.

    Most of the war materiel was completely USSR manufactured. We did send them a lot of machine tools, trucks and canned food. Russia flooded the US in the 90s with old home guard Mosin-Nagants which were the standard rifle of the Soviet Army (as well as captured German K-98s). They had their own unique cartridges and thus their own rifles, pistols, machine guns, tanks, artillery, and anti-tank guns. They had their own aircraft. A few were quite well regarded and known by aircraft aficionados. They also had what many consider the best overall tank in the war - far superior to the Sherman.

    What little we sent them had absolutely NO chance of making a dent against the Germans. When the Germans captured a Russian army in the beginning of the war almost everything was of Russian origin.

    This "we supplied the Russians" meme is so exaggerated by people in the US. The great film "The Unknown War" stated that total US support for the USSR was less than 5%. Not much got through until the wolf-packs were neutralized.

    http://ussr.wikia.com/wiki/Mosin_Nagant

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=134

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=38

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483223/

    [Cluttering up a comment thread by inserting enormously long Wikipedia quotes probably isn't good behavior.]

    [MORE]

    During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

    An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

    But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

    Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer. In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead.

    According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).

    Given the disruption to Soviet production and Red Army losses, the Soviet Union was understandably eager to put British armor into action as soon as possible. According to Biriukov’s service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.

    The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.

    A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.

    Lend-Lease aid did not “save” the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow. But the speed at which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union, and at which the Soviet Union was able to put foreign equipment into frontline use, is still an underappreciated part of this story. During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.

    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[40][41]
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    All fine and dandy until you look at Soviet production of T-34 tanks for instance. In almost 4 years we supplied 13,303 combat vehicles which could be jeeps, half-tracks, tanks, and self-propelled howitzers. The Russians produced 80,000 of the T34s alone.

    We helped, there is no doubt about it. Our help was mainly to their logistical needs. We did not supply the weapons the Soviets used in the war and were not the major reason why the Soviets defeated the Germans.

    One has to remember that the Germans were also under-equipped when they attacked Russia. They were not a fully mechanized army. If you look at their equipment strength, the numbers of combat vehicles and aircraft is strikingly low for such a big attack.

    I doubt that 60 divisions claim because we were having a hard time with our supply lines being stretched too thin in Europe as to send enough equipment to the Soviets for what would be about 1/3 of our total strength in the west.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  114. @SolontoCroesus
    At the end of WWII FDR was dead.

    That's more than a correction your comment; it raises the question, how was the (alleged??) assassination of Patton implicated in decisions and promises made by FDR to Stalin?

    Susan Liebman Butler's research into the correspondence between Roosevelt and Stalin suggests some answers. One example: according to Butler, apparently, FDR made a deal with Stalin that Stalin would invade Manchuria if USA bombed Japan.

    In a talk at the Roosevelt Library this exchange took place:

    Question: “You said that Roosevelt feared no nation. If he felt comfortable having the USSR on his side.
    Butler: Yes. Totally comfortable.
    --- and you think that if he had lived and they argued over the territories after the war, they would have butted heads?
    Butler: Well, Roosevelt died and we dropped the bomb. On the day second bomb was dropped Stalin kept his commitment to FDR that three months after VE day the Red Army would invade China. “Because we dropped the bomb, on the next day a million Russian soldiers invaded Manchuria and engaged the Japanese.
    We are going to learn a lot of things as we look at the FACTS of the second world war.”
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?190721-1/book-discussion-dear-mr-stalin
     
    Now, supposedly Truman was not aware that the USA had an atom bomb, so it would be useful to know who was counseling Truman to fulfill FDR's pact, and what other deals FDR had made, and who knew about them.

    Now I remember why I mentioned FDR. it is because so many people think FDR “gave” away eastern Europe to Stalin because FDR was a fool or some kind of Soviet stooge and the quote I highlighted mentioned not needing to give the Soviets any territory.

    Read More
  115. @Wally
    Curious how anti-semites are virulent and Jew communities always vibrant. LOL

    antisemitic:
    any thought or person that a Jew doesn't like

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com


    Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

    - Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
     

    And Gerard Menuhin makes a great point: if all Jews behaved like the Menuhins, anti-Semitism would not exist! It is collective Jewish behavior, not their bloodline, that makes them despised among the nations. This point was made quite candidly by Bernard Lazare, the Jewish, pioneer Zionist author of “Antisemtism: Its History and Causes”.

    Read More
  116. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Let’s suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward.
     
    A supposition? Seems more like a safe assumption. Can you think of a single cover-up of government criminal activity the MSM has exposed? Excluding personal vendettas, the frequent sexual escapades and individual efforts at fraud, extortion, etc. common among petty officials, of course. Truly egregious examples, such as the murders and destruction of Americans and American materiel by Israel in 1967, remain aggressively and persistently quashed. There no reason to believe media-control will ever stop.

    Shouldn’t that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant “conspiracy theories” because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM?
     
    For the public at large? How are you going to accomplish that? Sure, there are people like us, who have learned over time that the MSM do the bidding of those who hold power. I see no available path to Truth and Integrity in government and media. A fatuous fantasy, at best.

    There are ruminations about that the US public no longer implicitly trusts the media, that polls may be inaccurate because Americans now conceal their true opinions, saving them for expression in the voting booth. Who is telling us that? The media. What does it matter to them? Their power is absolute, their control well-within the capability of producing any set of options desired by those in power.

    Yes, things will eventually get so bad that America, or parts of it, will revolt. That tempest will be quelled -- ruthlessly -- before spilling out of the teapot . The weaponry available to the modern totalitarian police state permits no successful revolutions.

    I'm sure tomorrow's gruel will be delicious.

    More analysis and discrimination and less rhetoric and absolutist assertion please.

    “Their power is absolute their control well within the capability of producing whatever any set of options desired by those in power”.

    Reflect on that. Isn’t almost every part the naive nightmare of someone who has lived as a monk or hermit with little ordinary human contact? (Of course you won’t say “yes” if you actually fit that description).

    “Absolute power”! What does it even mean?

    And can anyone point to a group of the powerful who aren’t in serious contention with one another? Exceptions and temporary truces have to be demonstrated – as exceptions.

    You are incidentally implying that none of the powerful belong to groups with differences in their underlying value systems or do you think that every difference in religion is subsumed amongst the powerful by an overarching lust for wealth? (Of course you would then need to look at the purposes for which they desire wealth and what flows from it. OK you could say that inhertance taxes don’t worry them because they don’t touch the very rich. But what of those who give it away in large chunks? Do they all line up together? Are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett part of some “Anglo-Zionist” conspiracy of those with the “absolute power”?).

    Wake up, escape your nightmares and start looking, listening and thinking. You’ll find enough bad particulars to keep you happy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Wake up, escape your nightmares and start looking, listening and thinking. You’ll find enough bad particulars to keep you happy.
     
    Oh, fuck off. I'll make comments, and you can kiss my butt if you don't like what I write. There is absolutely zero requirement that I provide you with any justification whatsoever for what I say. If you wish to rebut my statements, then do so. If your attempt at rebuttal concerns me sufficiently, I may respond. In this specific circumstance, you make no rebuttal, you just whine. Go whine at someone else.
    , @Carroll Price
    Your feeble attempts at running interference for your Jew buddies in the MSM are laughable and pathetic among an audience of informed individuals. Is this the best you can do?
  117. @mr. meener
    so I guess you are mad that Patton figured out we fought WWII to save the communists the jewish invention . Patton saw to late that we fought the wrong people. all these communist groupies here saying the soviets defeated the Germans when any one knows their supply lines were to long and it was the winter that did it. The communists could have never beaten a supplied German army . our communist loving govt sent millions of tons of steel to russia being they had allies in roosevelt administration that was loaded with bolshevik jews. Patton said the Russians lived off the land coming down and there was nothing left for them if they were to be pushed back

    The communists could have never beaten a supplied German army

    Not true. Look at the statistics, 80% of Germany’s losses occurred on the eastern front. The Russians had to fight in winter too. On a rifle to rifle or soldier to soldier basis, the Germans were the finest army in the world. However as Stalin has been claimed to have said: “Quantity has a quality all its own” or as was supposedly written by a German officer to his wife about the invasion of Russia (from the documentary “The World At War”): This is like an elephant attacking an army of ants, at each step hundreds are killed, but in the end the elephant is eaten to the bone”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mr. meener
    the Russians had no supply problems a starving army with little in munitions easy to beat. since we fought the war to save the communists we supplied them with millions of tons of steel and a lot more. without that they lose the war with Germany
  118. @Rurik

    Why did Patton “love like a brother” anyone ... who would kill Germans?
     
    I suspect that Patton was above all things, a warrior, who love war and wanted to win it, once it was on.

    He was romantic about it. It was supposed to be done in an honorable but ferocious way. And that's how he rolled. Blood and guts.

    But then after raining death and destruction upon the Germans, who no one questions their fighting spirit, he came to have a grudging respect for the German people and their accomplishments and culture. He saw them as superior to the Soviet throngs of sub-human rapists (that I sometime harp on). He wanted the Germans to repudiate Nazism and join the Christian, civilized family of the West. But the Zio-banksters in New York and London had no such desire. They wanted their cruel and unforgiving boot upon the German neck, as did the Red Army Rapists.

    When Patton didn't serve the interests of the bankers who owned FDR and Churchill like the little bitches that they were, and treat the defeated and prostrate German people with hatred and contempt, they assassinated him

    Agree with almost everything you wrote, Rurik, esp. that “Patton was a romantic about war . . . fought in an honorable but ferocious way.” R H S Stolfi argues that Hitler was much the same — Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.

    But there’s an internal contradiction in this statement:

    He wanted the Germans to repudiate Nazism and join the Christian, civilized family of the West.

    It was the “Christian, civilized family of the West” that firebombed German (and Japanese) civilians; that allowed Zhukov’s army to run amok and rape German women; that kept Germans in a state of homelessness and hunger for ~two years until Marshall said Enough; that set up kangaroo courts to kill those “honorable but ferocious German warriors;” and that carried out the psychological re-programming of Germans — and the concomitant market-making — through the Books as Weapons program under Eisenhower’s command, directed (initially) by James P Warburg.

    In my (jaundiced) view, WWII was a religious war against Christianity, or at least a war that pitted Anglican Christianity against German Christianity, and Jewishness in league with Anglicanism against German Christianity. I deduce this notion from the three categories that Lindbergh named:

    The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp

    FDR was raised and educated in staunchly Episcopalian tradition; as Lynne Olsen details in “Those Angry Days,” British propagandists sent over a thousand agents to the USA to incite the American masses to war; the Jewish cohort is amply represented by influential Jewish leaders who were very close to Roosevelt; they include Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his Communist spy-sidekick-brain Harry Dexter White, Stephen Wise, Louis Brandeis, assorted Warburgs, Lehmans and Rosenwalds.

    Also significant in making the case that the war with Germany was a war against the “Christian, civilized family of the West” is Suzannah Heschel’s strident text titled The Aryan Jesus:
    Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.

    Heschel’s work is the only source, in English, that I have been able to find where the work of Walther Grundmann is mentioned. Grundmann led a movement in Germany that attempted to define Christianity, and Jesus, divorced from a Hebrew or Old Testament matrix. Heschel deems this effort antisemitic, which, of course, it is, in once sense: European Christianity is not Semitic (as someone noted recently in a different thread, most Ashkenazi are not Semitic either; genetically, they are “60% European.” Now I’m dizzy.)

    In one of Churchill’s speeches he declared himself to be the defender of “Christian civilization.” Perhaps he was drunk when the Sermon on the Mount was preached.

    Many, many of Germany’s great and historic Christian churches were destroyed or damaged — Allied bombers were capable of sparing certain Ford plants in Germany, so we have to assume there was no care given to protecting the holy places of Christianity in Germany.

    I think a compelling case could be made that there was far more Christianity practiced in Germany and by Nazis than by the “Christian Western Allies.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    It was the “Christian, civilized family of the West” that firebombed German (and Japanese) civilians
     
    when describing the men who planned the death by fire for the inhabitants of Dresden, I'd prefer they be described as "Christian", rather than Christian. I kind of see that lot more or less like the "Christian" Zionists who're clamoring for Palestinian blood, even Christian Palestinian blood, to facilitate their rapture.

    I draw a distinction between the two. My use of the word Christian when describing Patton was as the aspirational kind, that had at one time defined the culture and spirituality of the West, even (or especially) as it flourished under the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. I guess in a way Patton was hoping for Germany to remember or realize their inner 'American'. Like the way the colonel talks about the 'gooks' in this clip. (recently posted on Unz by Priss)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMEViYvojtY

    In my (jaundiced) view, WWII was a religious war against Christianity,
     
    I would describe it as a race or tribal war on Christendom itself. On our (Western) civilization and on our DNA. It would have been well if it had never been fought in the first place, but some people (the ones foi$ting the world wars) were very big winners indeed. They saw the hated anti-Semites slaughtering each other with wild abandon (sixty + million dead), and out of the carnage and smoking ruins of Europe rose Israel.

    Now they're trying to foi$t a war between Russia and Europe/NATO

    won't that be fun?!
  119. @Emblematic
    There are Patton memes floating around alt-rightish type lanes of the internet quoting him as supposedly saying "We fought the wrong enemy". Not exactly a welcome sentiment to the kind of people view the fight against Nazi Germany as having been a holy war.

    The reluctance of respectable media to consider the extent to which the Roosevelt administration wasn't just anti-German but pro-Soviet was manifest with notable passion in the angry condemnation of Diana West's American Betrayal.

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Betrayal-Assault-Nations-Character/dp/0312630786/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1471843529&sr=1-1

    I would not be surprised if Patton had, in fact, made the statement of “we fought the wrong enemy.” A quote I had read many years ago, supposedly from Winston Churchill, after it became obvious that Stalin was not planning on withdrawing from captured territory was. “I think we slaughtered the wrong pig.” After all, there had been many communiques from Hitler suggesting that the Bolsheviks planned to push all the way to the Atlantic and suggesting Britain should join him in defeating them in Russia. As it turned out, it probably was Patton’s presence in Europe that prevented “Uncle Joe” from completing his mission.

    Read More
  120. @Ron Unz

    Still, here’s some interesting info I found:

    Apparently, no one ever hinted that Patton was assassinated until 1979, months after a movie (Brass Target) came out with a fictionalized plot.
     
    Well, the argument you're quoting would be more effective if it weren't factually incorrect, as I'd already pointed out in a previous comment upthread:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1537910

    Furthermore, TARGET PATTON author Robert K. Wilcox had also left a long and detailed comment regarding the evidence provided by individual you cite:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1538062

    Commenters such as yourself who appear too lazy to bother reading previous comments before leaving your own redundant ones hardly enhance their credibility on a complex historical question such as this.

    Commenters such as yourself who appear too lazy to bother reading previous comments before leaving your own redundant ones hardly enhance their credibility on a complex historical question such as this.

    Yeah, guilty as charged. I did a search for “Brass Target” (saw only Verymuchalive’s comment, #18) and the name of the site the response appears upon, which seems more than due diligence for a comment.

    Speaking of due diligence, if you are really interested in “a complex historical question such as this” then it might be worthwhile to find some actual historians who find the tale implausible. Perhaps Wilcox is onto something, and even the critique I (lazily) linked praises him for his thoroughness. Hopefully, history professors are not in on the conspiracy.

    As for my credibility, I have none at all, but still about the same amount as an “assassin” who fesses up three decades after the fact, but less than a year after a film about such a plot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there’s none to be found that I can see.

    Read More
  121. @MarkinLA
    But for Roosevelt’s determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn’t it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Could there be a negotiated surrender with Hitler when the main condition would be his imprisonment and execution. He obviously was willing to take the whole country with him.

    Hitler and the NSDAP made numerous peace overtures.

    Would the world have been a better place if a peace deal had been reached that included the imprisonment and execution of Josef Stalin? According to Zbigniev Brzezinski, Stalin’s slaughters far exceeded any killing actually done by the Nazis, and Stalin kept millions in oppressive conditions for decades, vs. Hitler’s scant 5 years a-warring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Churchill knew that Hitler's peace agreements weren't worth the paper they were written on, maybe that's why. Getting rid of Stalin would have been good for everybody but the British always had to fear a Germany more than a Russia due to their position on the map.
  122. @Ron Unz

    Evidently, this whole Patton’s assassination rumor is a result of lack of grasp of the scale and proportions of WW II, in which Patton and his 3rd Army were merely a footnotes...The whole of notion of “fighting Russians” in 1945 is altogether a folie de grandeur.
     
    Well, I'm not a military expert on late WWII, but Patton's repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended. Therefore, he thought the Russians would have little chance of fighting more than a few weeks against America's massively-supplied military. Wasn't there some famous strategist who emphasized that while amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics? I can't say whether Patton's opinion was at all correct, but that's what he was arguing to everyone.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton's statements in 1945, it seemed like he'd half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America's most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.

    I really don't feel that "motive" is the weak point of the assassination hypothesis...

    Motive? It would be that of those Soviet spies and their masters. It’s hard to see Harry Truman who didn’t face an election for three years getting too fussed about the prospect of Patton campaigning. And, to give weight to the Communist emphasis there would have been apprehension that the US would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union if it attacked. As it would have if it wasn’t winning well enough because of its logistics advantage or GIs were getting stroppy about not being sent home. Yep. Motive not a big problem.

    Now I am trying to hunt down any answer to my problem about the (secondhand) Wilcox version – which I think he now affirms as hearsay on this thread – because another commenter has pointed out that Donovan was no longer in charge by the time of Patton’s death. Sorry if I’ve missed something but that does seem to me to be a point Wilcox should deal with.

    Read More
  123. @MarkinLA
    Patton’s repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended.

    As compared to the US where every ounce of fuel had to be brought in by ships? Wasn't one of Ike's biggest problems deciding which of his hungry chicks was to get the worm next? By that I mean Patton's army was supposedly halted just outside of Germany because they overran their supply lines because the operation in norther Europe were given priority.

    As compared to the US where every ounce of fuel had to be brought in by ships? Wasn’t one of Ike’s biggest problems deciding which of his hungry chicks was to get the worm next?

    That’s a reasonable point, though since (I think) the Western allies had total superiority in strategic air power and naval transport, I’d assume that by 1945 their supply situation was much stronger and less vulnerable than that of the Soviets. But I don’t claim any military expertise in these matters.

    However, my point wasn’t the reality, but what Patton firmly believed and told everybody. Whether he was correct or not, I can’t say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {That’s a reasonable point, though since (I think) the Western allies had total superiority in strategic air power and naval transport, I’d assume that by 1945 their supply situation was much stronger and less vulnerable than that of the Soviets. But I don’t claim any military expertise in these matters.}

    In Viet Nam, US Air Force not only had air superiority, but had air supremacy.
    Yet US was never able to cut off the Hồ Chí Minh trail. Supplies flowed from North to South pretty much uninterrupted.

    The notion that US air force would be able to stop the supply lines in a country the size of USSR is, well, delusional.
  124. @syonredux
    [Cluttering up a comment thread by inserting enormously long Wikipedia quotes probably isn't good behavior.]

    During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

    An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.
     

    But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.
     

    Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer. In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead.
     

    According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).

    Given the disruption to Soviet production and Red Army losses, the Soviet Union was understandably eager to put British armor into action as soon as possible. According to Biriukov’s service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.
     

    The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.
     

    A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.
     

    Lend-Lease aid did not “save” the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow. But the speed at which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union, and at which the Soviet Union was able to put foreign equipment into frontline use, is still an underappreciated part of this story. During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.
     
    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[40][41]
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

    All fine and dandy until you look at Soviet production of T-34 tanks for instance. In almost 4 years we supplied 13,303 combat vehicles which could be jeeps, half-tracks, tanks, and self-propelled howitzers. The Russians produced 80,000 of the T34s alone.

    We helped, there is no doubt about it. Our help was mainly to their logistical needs. We did not supply the weapons the Soviets used in the war and were not the major reason why the Soviets defeated the Germans.

    One has to remember that the Germans were also under-equipped when they attacked Russia. They were not a fully mechanized army. If you look at their equipment strength, the numbers of combat vehicles and aircraft is strikingly low for such a big attack.

    I doubt that 60 divisions claim because we were having a hard time with our supply lines being stretched too thin in Europe as to send enough equipment to the Soviets for what would be about 1/3 of our total strength in the west.

    Read More
  125. @SolontoCroesus
    Hitler and the NSDAP made numerous peace overtures.

    Would the world have been a better place if a peace deal had been reached that included the imprisonment and execution of Josef Stalin? According to Zbigniev Brzezinski, Stalin's slaughters far exceeded any killing actually done by the Nazis, and Stalin kept millions in oppressive conditions for decades, vs. Hitler's scant 5 years a-warring.

    Churchill knew that Hitler’s peace agreements weren’t worth the paper they were written on, maybe that’s why. Getting rid of Stalin would have been good for everybody but the British always had to fear a Germany more than a Russia due to their position on the map.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Churchill expressed admiration for both Hitler and Mussolini, and had an interest in things paper:

    In 1937 Churchill said of Hitler, "If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."

    David Irving has documented that Churchill's lavish lifestyle, as well as his son's chronic gambling debts, were amply covered by The Focus for the Defence of Freedom and Peace, a group founded in 1935 under auspices of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which was associated with Samuel Untermyer's Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League. The Focus included "various politicians who were hostile to Germany for various reasons, either ideological for Labour Party members, factions within the Conservative Party who were opposed to the Chamberlin-Baldwin anti-war government," with Winston Churchill at its center -- and the main beneficiary. Focus was funded, in the main, by Robert Waley-Cohen, chairman of Shell Oil.

    In other words, Churchill did not negotiate for peace with Germans because he was paid to do the opposite; indeed, his personal financial survival depended upon war, at the cost to the British of their empire.


    Winston Churchill ordered the assassination of Benito Mussolini as part of a plot to destroy potentially compromising secret letters he had sent the Italian dictator, a leading French historian has suggested.


    About that label "dictator," indicating that leaders exercised power without the democratically expressed, i.e. by vote, of the led people (as Alexander has defined fascism): it's worth noting that the British public were not given the opportunity to vote for Churchill from the time he took power from Chamberlain, in May 1940, until the first general election of the period, in which Churchill was resoundingly voted out of office. As historians have documented, Churchill's first act after losing office was to return to the spot in Italy where Mussolini is said to have last been seen with the case of letters from the British leader to Il Duce.

    (Slightly off-topic but worth mentioning: according to his friend and biographer, J. Schechtman, Vladimir Jabotinsky was also an admirer of Mussolini and sought to imitate his muscular style of leadership.)
    , @MarkinLA
    Well if Hitler really wanted peace he could have removed his troops from Czechoslovakia except for the Sudetenland and gotten completely out of Poland while putting together a coalition of those countries and Britain and France to push Stalin out of the rest of Poland.

    There were lots of things Hitler could have done but he didn't. He assumed he could play the old European kings's game of stopping a war for a few years, keeping what you stole, and then starting it up again when you feel you have the upper hand.
    , @Carroll Price

    Getting rid of Stalin would have been good for everybody but the British always had to fear a Germany more than a Russia due to their position on the map.
     
    ...and the fact that Germany represented an emerging economic rival which England and the US could not effectively compete. Which in turn resulted in a Zionist controlled England and US waging a war on Germany, that would result in Germany's defeat.
  126. @guest
    I think it's fair to say that any nation that just lost 20 million (million!) or so people is weakened. Plus, you don't figure in what destruction the Werhmacht wrought. Also, weak is a relative term. They were weak compared to what they would be after a post-war buildup, presumably, so better to go after them now than later. That's the logic.

    {That’s the logic.}

    That’s no logic.

    1939 Census USSR, 170 million people. (-25 million=145 million)
    1939 Census US, 132 million.

    USSR lost about 25 million people: about 10 million civilians and 15 million troops.

    Read my post again: by the end of WW2, despite their enormous losses the Red Army had 11 million tough, experienced men under arms, who had gone through Hell, and had come out a bunch of tough SOBs.

    I am assuming Patton meant US alone attacking USSR, since no European country was in a position to join. So how was US going to fight a land war with USSR on its backyard? If Nazi Germany, the finest military machine in the world at that time, and which was on the same continent, could not defeat USSR – how was US going to defeat USSR?

    In 1945 SU still had a larger population base than US.
    True they had lost a lot of fighting age men, but like I wrote, even with the enormous losses, they still had 11 million tough fighters in 1945.
    Their generals and officer corps had learned from Wehrmacht, and in many cases had become better than their teachers.

    And as the other poster wrote: who in America was going to volunteer to fight on the Eurasian continent? Who was going to convince anyone to go fight another X years people who they were told were their allies all this time.

    Patton was delusional and a loose cannon.
    And Patton had missed out on his chance: he got old before he could become ‘Great’.

    He was a bitter old man seeking glory he did not have in his younger years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    The Soviets would not have had air superiority and would no longer receive the massive supplies from us as they had in the past. Stalin also had no assurance that atomic weapons would not be used against Russia.

    You're undoubtedly right about the quality of the Red Army by war's end (though their approach included wasteful mass attacks with SMERSH incentives in their rear) but it would have been quickly neutralized and starved at the end of a long supply line. The mirror image of Napoleon's problem perhaps.
  127. @annamaria
    "Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan’s surrender, but as a message to Stalin."
    That is a very well grounded belief - actually, the only plausible explanation to the war crime.

    It was a war crime and several top brass said as much shortly after.

    As for the concept that Japan was beaten before the bombs were dropped, a good case could be made that Japan was beaten before the attack on Pearl. Heck, the Japanese military and economy were so weak that they were having trouble controlling their colony, Manchukuo. The attack on Pearl was nothing more than a desperate attempt to buy time, and the bombs were ineffably criminal.

    Also, what a lot of folks don’t know is that the Soviets were given a lot of technology and material for nukes through the Lend Lease program in addition to that which they stole.

    An army officer, Major Jordan wrote about it.

    Read More
  128. @Ron Unz

    As compared to the US where every ounce of fuel had to be brought in by ships? Wasn’t one of Ike’s biggest problems deciding which of his hungry chicks was to get the worm next?
     
    That's a reasonable point, though since (I think) the Western allies had total superiority in strategic air power and naval transport, I'd assume that by 1945 their supply situation was much stronger and less vulnerable than that of the Soviets. But I don't claim any military expertise in these matters.

    However, my point wasn't the reality, but what Patton firmly believed and told everybody. Whether he was correct or not, I can't say.

    {That’s a reasonable point, though since (I think) the Western allies had total superiority in strategic air power and naval transport, I’d assume that by 1945 their supply situation was much stronger and less vulnerable than that of the Soviets. But I don’t claim any military expertise in these matters.}

    In Viet Nam, US Air Force not only had air superiority, but had air supremacy.
    Yet US was never able to cut off the Hồ Chí Minh trail. Supplies flowed from North to South pretty much uninterrupted.

    The notion that US air force would be able to stop the supply lines in a country the size of USSR is, well, delusional.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    In Viet Nam, US Air Force not only had air superiority, but had air supremacy.
    Yet US was never able to cut off the Hồ Chí Minh trail. Supplies flowed from North to South pretty much uninterrupted.

    The notion that US air force would be able to stop the supply lines in a country the size of USSR is, well, delusional.
     
    Sure, but wasn't the Ho Chi Minh trail merely supplying a relatively small force of guerrillas in the south, basically light infantry? That's obviously very different than what the Soviets would have faced supplying their gigantic heavy infantry and armored forces in Central Europe. And Patton certainly wasn't talking about trying to invade the USSR, which would have been crazy. He was just claiming that mostly for supply reasons, he thought the Western forces would have been able to push the Soviets back to their own border.

    And it's very possible that he was totally wrong about that...
    , @Ace
    LBJ apparently said of the Laotian border, "Goodness gracious. There's an invisible line there that we cannot cross. I guess GIs will just have to get killed."

    LBJ did not cut the HCM trail and relied on a difficult air interdiction strategy where visibility was limited. Even our air superiority was deliberately diminished by ludicrous ROE.

    When Nixon went into Cambodia it was the end of effective NVA operations in the Delta. One limited foray caused enormous damage to the communists who were used to our fatuous self restraint.
    , @Rudel
    "As compared to the US where every ounce of fuel had to be brought in by ships? Wasn’t one of Ike’s biggest problems deciding which of his hungry chicks was to get the worm next?"

    "In Viet Nam, US Air Force not only had air superiority, but had air supremacy.
    Yet US was never able to cut off the Hồ Chí Minh trail. Supplies flowed from North to South pretty much uninterrupted.

    The notion that US air force would be able to stop the supply lines in a country the size of USSR is, well, delusional."

    And the argument shifts from "US supply lines were inadequate" to "The US couldn't cut Soviet supply lines" without missing a beat. Heh.
  129. @SolontoCroesus
    What was the cost to Frenchmen of Patton's, or more saliently, the Allied firebombers, of "kicking Germans out of France?"
    Allied firebombing killed more French civilians and destroyed more French civilian infrastructure than Germans did.

    But for Roosevelt's determination that Germany must surrender unconditionally and its army, and indeed the German people, Morgenthaued, isn't it possible, as Guest said @ 61, that an end to the killing could have been achieved through negotiation?

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.
     
    Note to Alexander, re comment #86

    In my opinion it is so important to understand George H W Bush's reasons for prosecuting the war in Persian Gulf 1990 - 1991 precisely because he pegged it to US aims in WWII:

    He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.
     
    SmoothieX12 argues forcefully that it was the Russians who defeated Hitler; and to defuse any whiff of antisemitism surrounding Patton, Robert K Wilcox noted that Patton's attitude was "if you are going to kill Germans and perform for me, I love you like a brother."

    A larger, and unresolved, even though never asked, question is, Why was it deemed necessary to "kill Germans?"

    Wilcox mentions that "Patton visited the concentration camps . . ." and was, of course appalled.

    But those visits took place well after 1933, and 1939, and 1940, and 1941, and 1944 -- when David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv stated that they believed Auschwitz was a labor camp.
    As Timothy Snyder told an audience in Chicago a year or so ago,

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs
     
    Presumably, Patton's "love like a brother" for anyone willing to kill Germans" was expressed before 1945, when he visited concentration camps.
    So where did that passion for killing Germans come from?

    In 1933, what was Germany's crime such that influential members of the Jewish community organized to carry out an economic war against Germany with the intend of destroying Germany's economy? In 1933, for what reasons did the American people have a need to "kill Germans?"

    In 1938, 1939, 1940, what casus belli did the USA have against Germany?

    In 1942 and 1943, what had Germans done to USA that was so grievous that only the unconditional surrender of Germany, and the continued brutalization of German civilians as well as German POWs/ disarmed enemy combatants, for over 3 years beyond that surrender, was sufficient to sate that primal urge to "kill Germans?"

    It's broken record time -- I will keep asking this until I get a good answer:

    In 2015 Robert Cohen wrote:

    Holocaust denial will remain a fringe issue. The documentation is secure in its veracity and overwhelming in its volume. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/auschwitz-revisited/#sthash.3Bb8L3Q2.dpuf
     
    The implication is that it is not the case that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews."

    Therefore, these questions demand answers:
    How and why did "today's school children" come to think that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews;

    In 1933, 1936, 1939, 1940, what was "happening to the Jews" that required that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin foment war against Hitler;"
    Was anything that Hitler was doing to anybody in those years worse than what Stalin had done- and was doing- to kulaks, Ukrainians and Poles in 1932 - 1940?

    And if it is not true that "Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews," as Cohen implies, then why did they?

    Why did Patton "love like a brother" anyone -- even Jews and Negroes -- who would kill Germans?

    The obsession over “unconditional surrender” played straight into Stalin’s hands. Within that framework Stalin could work out the post-war scenario with Soviet Communism dominant everywhere. What an extraordinarily evil genius that man was.

    Read More
  130. A neighbor of mine, until his dying day, insisted that Patton was murdered. He insisted that enlisted men did it. Some guys had grudges against Patton for a variety of reasons. He knew one guy who claimed to fix the brakes on the car so that they could not stop. He wasn’t sure if this murder was covered up or that the investigators were that incompetent.
    While I can not prove any of this, it is another view of this incident. I myself think that it was an accident.
    On the other hand, I wonder about James Forrestal…

    Read More
  131. @Avery
    {That’s a reasonable point, though since (I think) the Western allies had total superiority in strategic air power and naval transport, I’d assume that by 1945 their supply situation was much stronger and less vulnerable than that of the Soviets. But I don’t claim any military expertise in these matters.}

    In Viet Nam, US Air Force not only had air superiority, but had air supremacy.
    Yet US was never able to cut off the Hồ Chí Minh trail. Supplies flowed from North to South pretty much uninterrupted.

    The notion that US air force would be able to stop the supply lines in a country the size of USSR is, well, delusional.

    In Viet Nam, US Air Force not only had air superiority, but had air supremacy.
    Yet US was never able to cut off the Hồ Chí Minh trail. Supplies flowed from North to South pretty much uninterrupted.

    The notion that US air force would be able to stop the supply lines in a country the size of USSR is, well, delusional.

    Sure, but wasn’t the Ho Chi Minh trail merely supplying a relatively small force of guerrillas in the south, basically light infantry? That’s obviously very different than what the Soviets would have faced supplying their gigantic heavy infantry and armored forces in Central Europe. And Patton certainly wasn’t talking about trying to invade the USSR, which would have been crazy. He was just claiming that mostly for supply reasons, he thought the Western forces would have been able to push the Soviets back to their own border.

    And it’s very possible that he was totally wrong about that…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Too many tentatives in yr post.
    , @The Alarmist

    "That’s obviously very different than what the Soviets would have faced supplying their gigantic heavy infantry and armored forces in Central Europe. And Patton certainly wasn’t talking about trying to invade the USSR, which would have been crazy. He was just claiming that mostly for supply reasons, he thought the Western forces would have been able to push the Soviets back to their own border."
     
    Airpower mattered to destroying the productive capacity of Germany as well as interdicting Germany's ability to get materiel to the front. Airpower would have been irrelevant to a war against the Soviet Union's productive capacity at that time (its productive capacity was out of reach), but it would be somewhat relevant to interdicting movement of materiel to the front. I suspect that by sheer mass the Red Army would have been able to force its way to the Channel despite the best efforts of Western airpower.

    Patton concluded that the Sovs moving troops by horse cart was a bug, but horses can eat grass, etc. on their way, while the Western powers would have to bring in petrol to keep the trucks and tanks rolling, so in my view horse carts are more a feature than a bug in an environment where it was difficult at best to bring the supplies of petrol to the consumers of it.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Ron

    While bearing in mind that your piece is really one of your case studies of the MSN's omissions rather than a verdict on the murder case against Donovan and/or persons unknown you have, unlike 90+ per cent of Commenters, read Wilcox's book and applied your usual sceptical critical analytical mind to it. So would you now give your current thinking in the light of

    1. Surely the one overwhelmingly significant reason to kill someone who might be able to start a war with the USSR, namely the fear of US atomic weapons being available and used. (As some Commenter said, they would, even if a few were available, only have made the war dirty but Stalin couldn't ave been sure of that);

    2. That Donovan, whom Wilcox's essential sources say was responsible for the order to kill Patton, was so far disliked and distrusted by both Truman and J. Edgar Hoover that the OSS was disbanded in September 1945 and he was out of a job. Bazata's story seems fanciful unless there is much more than I have read.

    3. The material linked in #244 and #101

    4. As Commenters and others that I have spoken to say the Patton murder rumour (which I wasn't conscious of having come across previously) has been going around for a long time I reminded of something a bit similar to the shoulder shrugging that may have been the media reaction to another telling of an old story. A lawyer may sometimes look for authority to cite to a judge for a proposition that is logically critical to his case but find none. Why? Because no one thought lne was needed for such a clearly correct point and no one had found a recorded judgment laying out the obvious. More a psychological point than one bearing on the particulars of the MSM ignoring Wilcox's book I understand.

    Trivial addendum

    One of the people who said he was well aware of the story was a hiatory professor of Ukrainian descent whose grandfather had returned from Scranton, PA to be captured by the Russians in 1914 and whose father, before escaping to Australia where my friend was born, was in some Ukrainian force in 1945 where it was dreamed that the US Army would help them take Moscow! Maybe Patton would have loved them though I had never heard that there were respectable Ukrainian armed units in 1945....

  132. @Wizard of Oz
    More analysis and discrimination and less rhetoric and absolutist assertion please.

    "Their power is absolute their control well within the capability of producing whatever any set of options desired by those in power".

    Reflect on that. Isn't almost every part the naive nightmare of someone who has lived as a monk or hermit with little ordinary human contact? (Of course you won't say "yes" if you actually fit that description).

    "Absolute power"! What does it even mean?

    And can anyone point to a group of the powerful who aren't in serious contention with one another? Exceptions and temporary truces have to be demonstrated - as exceptions.

    You are incidentally implying that none of the powerful belong to groups with differences in their underlying value systems or do you think that every difference in religion is subsumed amongst the powerful by an overarching lust for wealth? (Of course you would then need to look at the purposes for which they desire wealth and what flows from it. OK you could say that inhertance taxes don't worry them because they don't touch the very rich. But what of those who give it away in large chunks? Do they all line up together? Are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett part of some "Anglo-Zionist" conspiracy of those with the "absolute power"?).

    Wake up, escape your nightmares and start looking, listening and thinking. You'll find enough bad particulars to keep you happy.

    Wake up, escape your nightmares and start looking, listening and thinking. You’ll find enough bad particulars to keep you happy.

    Oh, fuck off. I’ll make comments, and you can kiss my butt if you don’t like what I write. There is absolutely zero requirement that I provide you with any justification whatsoever for what I say. If you wish to rebut my statements, then do so. If your attempt at rebuttal concerns me sufficiently, I may respond. In this specific circumstance, you make no rebuttal, you just whine. Go whine at someone else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well I don't seem to have prompted you to start down the path of moderation, restraint and reflection. A pity. I'm sorry.
    , @Clyde
    Very prissy from you, U need a hookup with the francon factory.
  133. @Avery
    {Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union}

    If Patton thought Red Army was weakened at the end of WW2, he was delusional. The Red Army was a steamroller towards the end of WW2. It had about 12 million men under arms, with seemingly inexhaustible reserves. Production of tanks, airplanes, armaments was at a peak. Its generals and officers had defeated and crushed the Wehrmacht, the finest military force at the time. The same beaten down Wehrmacht, btw, which chased and routed well rested, well equipped American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Saved only by the US Air Force (...no Luftwaffe left by that time).

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.
    Which btw did stop Stalin. Not from doing anything in Europe, but in Asia Minor.

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.
    When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

    The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

    “During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR)” – Never heard of that. Any reference?

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Nor have I heard of it. In any case, neutral means neutral. The word does not acquire some special meaning in the WW2 context, by which anyone not at war with Germany was fighting on their side.
    , @Avery
    {Any reference?}

    Sorry, No.
    I have never been able to find any reference to that in Western sources.
    The is probably some obscure book that mentions it, but Google cannot find it.

    It was common knowledge in Armenia SSR, where I am originally from.
    WW2 war vets, old timers, discussed it all the time.....seeing more Red Army troops and military hardware assembling near the borders of Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR than they'd ever seen before. Then, they were all gone....

    I understand it is no independent reference: just my recollection.
    If I ever find a source, will post it at a relevant thread.

  134. @CK
    The Russian Army in the East had already launched sea-borne invasions of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands as well as wiping out the Japanese Kwantung army in Manchuria, taking half of Korea ( as per an agreement with the USA ) and were in preparation for an invasion of Hokkaido Island. There were no Japanese military assets remaining on Hokkaido to impede the Russians. The Russians accomplished all this in the space of 11 days. The 9th to the 20th of August 1945.

    And they (Soviets) took 800,000 Japanese POW’s out of which 600,000 survived Gulags. I bring this up because it never ceases to amaze me that Americans managed to kill circa 1 million Japanese soldiers during Pacific campaign and only took circa 50,000 POW’s. Supposedly towards the end of war American GI’s were incentivized with ice cream to bring live Japanese soldiers instead of killing them because the statistics (100 dead : 1 alive) did not look good to higher ups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    When you are fighting on a island cut off by the US Navy with no chance of retreat it is probably easier for the commanders to continue to insist on their code of Bushido where surrender is dishonorable. There are stories of mass suicidal Japanese charges against machine guns in those battles. There are also the stories of Japanese with grenades in their pockets willing to take some Americans with them.

    Add it all up and you probably won't get a lot of POWs.
    , @Ace
    ** incentivized with ice cream **

    Seriously?
  135. @TheDaughter
    Dear Oz---From what reliable source did you get that version? The official story--and the one reported in the "Stars and Stripes" much to my dad's surprise--is that Patton died in the hospital twelve days after the "accident." But see, the point of this article is that the evidence points away from the official story. I just happen to know one of the eye witnesses. You can believe who you want.

    I see you’ve met the Wiz, a mental-gynast of truly Olympic standard for his mind bending arguments against anything that contradicts his accepted “truth”. The confirmation bias is mighty indeed in one so intellectually gifted as he himself believes himself to be. So it must be valid, see?

    Read More
  136. @guest
    You seem to be under the delusion that the only way to surrender is unconditionally. The Japanese were trying to surrender. The U.S. wouldn't accept terms, which is why they resorted to the A-bomb. It certainly wasn't because mainland Japan had to be invaded and millions would've been killed, as our propaganda would have you believe. How did they know we weren't going to Morgenthau them? That's why they fought on.

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there's no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.

    How did they know we weren’t going to Morgenthau them? That’s why they fought on.

    Yup.

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there’s no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous

    Very much so. Once you demand unconditional surrender your enemy is faced with a war for survival and he will fight harder and more fiercely and for a lot longer. The Allied insistence on unconditional surrender caused an enormous number of unnecessary deaths on all sides. Demanding unconditional surrender is stupid and barbaric.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Have you considered why there was a demand for unconditional surrender? In particular are you aware of the arguments that were based on the flawed peacemaking efforts at the end of WW1? And the concern consequently to ensure that the German people would know they were beaten and not be susceptible again to stab-in-the-back arguments?
  137. Wikipravda. Excellent!

    Sounds like a great book to have. I’m as ignorant as most about that part of the post-War. WHAT WOULD HISTORY BE LIKE IF PATTON HAD SURVIVED?

    Read More
  138. @Astuteobservor II
    so someone who had brains and the courage to stand up. what did he get in return? assassination attempts and a final successful one.

    I am just glad that in the internet + smartphone age, assassinations are no longer possible.

    to be honest, america reaped the benefits of 2 world wars waiting till the very end to join both. patton was jeopardizing all of it. why would the people in control allow it :( I am surprised patton didn't take better measures to protect himself. he was up against people who started and finished 2 world wars just for the very power(national interest) he tried to negate.

    You’re absolutely right. US Army Gen. George S. Patton was the one who had the brains and courage to stand up to both Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Soviets and paid the ultimate price. He had informed a friend (most likely, British Gen. Bernard Montgomery, who came to the same conclusions Patton had) that “We had fought the wrong enemy”.
    Patton never trusted Ike and disdained him as a “desk jockey”, and his disdain grew even more intense when he learned that Ike had flown to Moscow on “Uncle Joe” Stalin’s invitation and received a medal from his (Ike’s) friend, Marshal Georgi Zukhov .. all this, while some 2 million German females aged 8-80 were being gang-raped under “Uncle Joe’s” orders. He was outspoken against the brutal conditions the 1-2 million German POW’s were forced to suffer under, by order of Ike. The camps had no shelters and these prisoners were subjected to unsanitary conditions and eventually died from starvation, disease and exposure.
    Yes, indeed, the US reaped the benefits of two World Wars, having waited until near the end to join both .. and Patton was jeopardizing it all.
    Patton most likely didn’t take measures to defend himself, because he never thought that he’d be targeted for elimination, aka assassination. As you said, he was up against people who started and finished two World Wars, just for the power (national interest) he tried to negate. These people feared him enough to have him bumped off.

    Read More
  139. @Regnum Nostrum
    I doubt that story very much. Here are the facts.

    The car with three people in it was travelling slow. Patton and his Chief of Staff, Major General Hobart Gay, and a driver Horace Woodring at the wheel. Patton and Gay in the back seat. Somewhere along the road they collide with a truck. It is a minor collision during which only General Patton gets hurt and rather seriously. Two of his vertebrae were broken but he lived for another 12 days. If it had been an assassination it would have been the first one I know of which relied on chance.

    Here are the inconsistencies, speculations, rumours, wild guesses and such.

    The agent, Douglas Bazata, keeps changing his story. In one version he claims to organize the colision and shooting Patton in the neck with low velocity projectile the result of which were two broken vertebrae. Well when did he shoot? He could not have done it before the collision and he could not have done it after the collision. To hit the neck right at the moment of the collision is very unlikely because the back window is quite small. It gets better. In another version he says that he shot Patten from the side. Then he announced in front of 450 invited guests, nearly all high-ranking ex-members of the OSS at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC the 25th of September, 1979. that he was not the actual killer but knew who killed him and that he was poisoned in the hospital in which he was recuperating. He claims that the poisoners were agents of NKVD. In another version he even told Wilcox that he was finally able to get a message to the general that he was the target of an assassination plot, but a short time before Patton was set to leave Germany for the United States, the road crash took place on Dec. 21, 1945. Nothing of this makes sense. Why arrange an accident so that we can brake someone's neck with a low velocity projectile? There are simpler ways to get rid of somebody.

    The Russians had absolutely no reason to assassinate him. Patton was about to retire and his animosity towards Russians at this stage could not do any harm. I also believe that the US government had no reason to assassinate him just because he had some disagreements concerning policy.

    The Russians had absolutely no reason to assassinate him.

    Considering that they intended to hold on to enormous chunks of territory in eastern Europe, and to foment revolutions in other European countries (like Greece) and that Patton was likely to make a big noise about it and possibly sway American public opinion enough to force the US government to actively oppose it I’d say there was ample motive.

    I actually think it’s unlikely he was assassinated but I agree with Ron that there were plenty of people with plausible motives.

    Read More
  140. @MarkinLA
    Not true.

    Most of the war materiel was completely USSR manufactured. We did send them a lot of machine tools, trucks and canned food. Russia flooded the US in the 90s with old home guard Mosin-Nagants which were the standard rifle of the Soviet Army (as well as captured German K-98s). They had their own unique cartridges and thus their own rifles, pistols, machine guns, tanks, artillery, and anti-tank guns. They had their own aircraft. A few were quite well regarded and known by aircraft aficionados. They also had what many consider the best overall tank in the war - far superior to the Sherman.

    What little we sent them had absolutely NO chance of making a dent against the Germans. When the Germans captured a Russian army in the beginning of the war almost everything was of Russian origin.

    This "we supplied the Russians" meme is so exaggerated by people in the US. The great film "The Unknown War" stated that total US support for the USSR was less than 5%. Not much got through until the wolf-packs were neutralized.

    http://ussr.wikia.com/wiki/Mosin_Nagant

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=134

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=38

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483223/

    Are you aware of Antony Sutton’s take on the Soviet’s production capacity? He wrote a series of books on the topic that cover the chronolgy from 1917 to 1965. The first is Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930.
    Feel free to pick up a copy on Amazon (just click the link — trust me :)

    https://www.amazon.com/Western-Technology-Soviet-Economic-Development/dp/0817919015

    And, after you’ve had a good laugh, go ahead and read the darn thing at archive.org:

    https://archive.org/details/Sutton–Western-Technology-1917-1930

    https://archive.org/details/Sutton–Western-Technology-1930-1945

    https://archive.org/details/Sutton–Western-Technology-1945-1965

    I haven’t read all this, to be sure, but I’ve heard Antony’s various synopses. You might find something of value.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I have heard that the suspension system of the T-34 was a Chrysler design that US generals did not want. I have also heard that the Japanese Zero was closely related to the record setting plane built by Howard Hughes. Did the Russian's steal and copy technology? Most likely they did but not any more than anybody else. The British gave them a jet motor at the end of WWII. The Allison engine in the P-51 was nothing compared to when the British put Rolls Royce Merlin engines in it.

    Everybody copies and reverse engineers all the time. All the patents expire when a war starts.
  141. @utu
    "During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR)" - Never heard of that. Any reference?

    Nor have I heard of it. In any case, neutral means neutral. The word does not acquire some special meaning in the WW2 context, by which anyone not at war with Germany was fighting on their side.

    Read More
  142. @Jus' Sayin'...
    My father fought in the Pacific and when the war ended was preparing for the invasion of Japan. He might very likely have died had that occurred. After Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc. the USA was preparing for a horrifically costly invasion. One preparation was a massive order for Purple Hearts, the stock of which is still being used up as a result of the USA's many military misadventures since WW II.

    The strategy of massive aerial bombardment with incendiaries -- which on some nights had caused more casualties than occurred at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki -- had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender. Neither had the gradually tightening noose around the home islands whose inevitable conclusion was a bloody invasion. Something more drastic was required and the atom bomb was the available tool. Even then it took two demonstrations of the weapon before the Japanese finally conceded defeat.

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely -- or indeed at all -- as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    You’re talking to rocks.

    Too many of these characters view the U.S. as the chief villain in WWII and anything that came out of the men who served in either theater as lies.

    Read More
  143. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Wake up, escape your nightmares and start looking, listening and thinking. You’ll find enough bad particulars to keep you happy.
     
    Oh, fuck off. I'll make comments, and you can kiss my butt if you don't like what I write. There is absolutely zero requirement that I provide you with any justification whatsoever for what I say. If you wish to rebut my statements, then do so. If your attempt at rebuttal concerns me sufficiently, I may respond. In this specific circumstance, you make no rebuttal, you just whine. Go whine at someone else.

    Well I don’t seem to have prompted you to start down the path of moderation, restraint and reflection. A pity. I’m sorry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Well I don’t seem to have prompted you to start down the path of moderation, restraint and reflection. A pity. I’m sorry.
     
    I assure you the burden of sorrow rests on my shoulders, not yours. May I suggest you may be happier, in the long run, simply blocking my posts?
  144. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Patton was a virulent anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html

    As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind.

    One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

    “Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.

    “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.”

    Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch.

    Under Patton, Nazis prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.”
     

    Patton said we fought the wrong enemy we should have fought the Russians and that the Germans were the only decent people left in Europe after the war. He figured out the real game of the traitors and was going to come back and become President and root them out so they killed him. Douglas Bazatta OSS confessed in 1974 to a room full of witnesses that Wild Bill Donovan hired him to murder Patton. Here we are at the beginning of WW III just as planned, so a bunch of demon possessed- Christ hating trash- can have their world supremacy and the ultimate Bolshevik promise of a planet full of dead goys and all the property of the world in their hands. Patton’s death was a great tragedy for humanity. Wailing and gnashing you bastards, that’s what awaits you murdering, perverted cosmic trash. Real Catholic or Hell, make the choice.

    Read More
  145. Having been exposed to Jewish behavior in the aftermath Patton came to the conclusion– and flat-out stated in his diary– that America had fought on the wrong side of the war and that we had “destroyed the best race in Europe”.

    It’s not difficult to imagine what his “speaking tour” was going to be about nor make accurate guesses about who therefore would not have wanted it to happen.

    Read More
  146. @Jus' Sayin'...
    US postage rates are an excellent reflection of inflation. A three-cent stamp in the 1950s was the standard first-class postage stamp, equivalent to a forty-eight (?) cent stamp today.

    Yes indeed and was running through my mind too :)

    Read More
  147. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Wake up, escape your nightmares and start looking, listening and thinking. You’ll find enough bad particulars to keep you happy.
     
    Oh, fuck off. I'll make comments, and you can kiss my butt if you don't like what I write. There is absolutely zero requirement that I provide you with any justification whatsoever for what I say. If you wish to rebut my statements, then do so. If your attempt at rebuttal concerns me sufficiently, I may respond. In this specific circumstance, you make no rebuttal, you just whine. Go whine at someone else.

    Very prissy from you, U need a hookup with the francon factory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Very prissy from you, U need a hookup with the francon factory.
     
    I was being polite, as I am now being polite to you, even though you indulged in gratuitous insult. This comment software does not lend itself to discussion, so I am inclined to do no more than post the occasional comment.
  148. @Ron Unz

    In Viet Nam, US Air Force not only had air superiority, but had air supremacy.
    Yet US was never able to cut off the Hồ Chí Minh trail. Supplies flowed from North to South pretty much uninterrupted.

    The notion that US air force would be able to stop the supply lines in a country the size of USSR is, well, delusional.
     
    Sure, but wasn't the Ho Chi Minh trail merely supplying a relatively small force of guerrillas in the south, basically light infantry? That's obviously very different than what the Soviets would have faced supplying their gigantic heavy infantry and armored forces in Central Europe. And Patton certainly wasn't talking about trying to invade the USSR, which would have been crazy. He was just claiming that mostly for supply reasons, he thought the Western forces would have been able to push the Soviets back to their own border.

    And it's very possible that he was totally wrong about that...

    Too many tentatives in yr post.

    Read More
  149. @Anonymous
    Patton was a virulent anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html

    As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind.

    One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

    “Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.

    “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.”

    Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch.

    Under Patton, Nazis prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.”
     

    Whoever killed Patton (the Russians or the Americans) did a good thing – otherwise there would be a USSR-US war in 1945, as Churchill wanted and demanded. If Patton would get to power, he and Churchill would unleash the most horrible war. Mind you, many Russian soldiers and officers of that time thought it would be good to fight to the very end and place the Red banner on the Capitol Hill. The Red Army was very strong then. So it was good to get rid of Patton and bring peace. Naturally kudos to Ron Unz for uncovering the story!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    So it was good to get rid of Patton and bring peace.
     
    well, with all due respect sir, I disagree

    Eastern Europe was handed over to a mortal fiend who crushed their spirit (the ones he didn't murder outright) and enslaved them for generations

    (if communism isn't slavery, I don't know what it is. What is slavery if not having every aspect of your life controlled and being forced to toil for the benefit of others?)

    and the effects of that terrible war(s) are even being felt today, as the Fiend is marching NATO right up to the Russian bear, and forcing a conflict.

    it would have been well for the world for men like Patton to throttle Stalin's goons and to speak out and question what was done to Europe and for whom. If Patton were at Yalta, would all of those heroic men who fought to keep the Red Army from ravaging their lands have been Keelhauled? I don't think so.

    the events of WWII and how that contrived, Satanic apocalypse changed the world and set in motion the way things are today, deserves a lot of scrutiny, if you ask me. But rather we're all supposed to believe as fact the narrative that has slithered out of the bowels of the winning side, where it's been turned into a cartoon-like conflict with one side being considered the epitome of evil and the other side as virtuous, valiant and heroic as man has ever been.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    There was massive good and massive evil on both sides, and a man like Patton might have helped to make us all understand that a little better. And that would have been a good thing.

    IMHO.
    , @The Alarmist
    I doubt the Red Army would have bothered to cross the Channel, much less the Atlantic, but the rest of Western Europe would have been in play and fairly easy pickings for the Red Army.

    The next question this raises is, "If France had been occupied by the Red Army after WWII, would you be able to tell the difference today?"
    , @George
    Patton's reputation was not that good.

    Patton sends Jewish commander on deranged suicide mission, which did not make it into the movie:

    Task Force Baum was a secret and controversial World War II task force set up by U.S. Army general George S. Patton and commanded by Capt. Abraham Baum in late March 1945. Baum was given the task of penetrating 50 miles (80 km) behind German lines and liberating the POWs in camp OFLAG XIII-B, near Hammelburg. Controversy surrounds the true reasons behind the mission, which may have been simply to liberate Patton's son-in-law, John K. Waters, taken captive in Tunisia in 1943. The result of the mission was a complete failure;

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum

    Patton was no George C Scott.

    Actual Voice of General Patton starting at 1:15 vs. Hollywood - ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4_47O2Pfy8
  150. @Andrei Martyanov

    and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces
     
    Again--get the facts straight. Red Air Force by the end of WW II was largest tactical-operational AF in history.

    Even in 1944 Russia lost 3.3 to 1 aircraft against Germany. Presumably, lend-lease would have been cut off in a conflict, which supplied them with over half of their aviation fuel.

    Read More
  151. Many of Patton’s family believed he was assassinated. Congressman Larry McDonald did. He was assassinated too.

    Lawrence Patton McDonald (1935 — 1983)

    Lawrence Patton “Karry” McDonald (April 1, 1935 – September 1, 1983) was an American politician and a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Georgia’s 7th congressional district as a Democrat from 1975 until he was killed while a passenger on board Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptors. As of 2016, McDonald is the most recent member of Congress to die violently while in office.

    A conservative Democrat, McDonald was active in numerous civic organizations and maintained a very conservative voting record in Congress. He was the prime mover in dedicating two statues in the US Congress Capitol Rotunda to prominent African-American leaders. He was known for his staunch opposition to communism and believed that there were longstanding covert efforts being made by the Trilateral Commission and other powerful US groups to bring about socialism and world government.He was the second president of the John Birch Society and also a cousin of General George S. Patton.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Thanks for your fine comment which prompted me to do some investigating since I am pretty ignorant on the Patton and MacDonald subjects.

    The "P" in fact in Larry P. MacDonald's name apparently stands for "Patton," and the two were cousins according to the article I'll link below. I found the article interesting from many standpoints not the least of which they make the point that Mr Unz is making, that it's curious how little news of real importance gets published.



    “During the 1960's and 1970's, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Wright Patman, Larry McDonald, and others, the message of a "One World Conspiracy" had begun to reach the "reading" American people. The usual action groups were formed by various citizens in an urgent attempt to get this information into the hands of the public, However, as usual, without coverage from the major media, their efforts have had only limited results.”

    From: Congressman Larry McDonald Exposed the New World Order Tyranny, by Alexander James
    The Hidden History of Money

    http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2253
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Why do you use the word "assassinated" of McDonald's death?

    And, apart from McDonald having a family connection to Patton, is there any reason for mentioning (without stating any reasoning by him or you) that he believed Patton to have been assassinated?
  152. @dahoit
    Yes,the Soviets would have run roughshod over the west,and only our air power would have made a dent in their forces,but probably not enough for victory.
    Plus the war weary drafted American troops wanted to just go home,and there would have been mutiny over an escalation into fighting the SU for how long?
    And Patton,a great fighting general,was an upper crust right wing elitist,and as the SU eventually collapsed under the weight of its own shortcomings,the lack of conflict was good,as no one had to die for nothing,as today's idiotic stupidity reveals.
    Yankee come home.

    only our air power would have made a dent in their forces

    LOL. And what a “dent” that would be. Germans could only move at night with shuttered headlights. Tanks were immobilized because supplies and fuel could not reach the front because of air interdiction. Strategic bombings would burn entire cities. Food rations had to be reduced due to destruction of transportation infrastructure.

    Chapter 19: Battle of the Bulge

    The ground claims for the entire period of the counteroffensive (16 December 1944 -31 January 1945) advanced by Ninth Air Force aircraft and by Eighth Air Force bombers and fighters … 11,378 motor transport, 1,161 tanks and armored vehicles, 507 locomotives, 6,266 railroad cars …

    The combined efforts of the strategic and tactical air forces had paralyzed virtually all rail traffic west of the Rhine

    Read More
  153. @Avery
    {Meanwhile, Patton, a zealous anti-Communist, had very different views, urging an immediate military attack on the weakened forces of the Soviet Union}

    If Patton thought Red Army was weakened at the end of WW2, he was delusional. The Red Army was a steamroller towards the end of WW2. It had about 12 million men under arms, with seemingly inexhaustible reserves. Production of tanks, airplanes, armaments was at a peak. Its generals and officers had defeated and crushed the Wehrmacht, the finest military force at the time. The same beaten down Wehrmacht, btw, which chased and routed well rested, well equipped American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Saved only by the US Air Force (...no Luftwaffe left by that time).

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.
    Which btw did stop Stalin. Not from doing anything in Europe, but in Asia Minor.

    During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the oilfields.
    When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.

    Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery and never forgave.
    When Germany surrendered, Stalin assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of East Turkey/West Armenia.

    The detonation of two American atomic bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's surrender, but as a message to Stalin.

    Saved only by the US Air Force

    Is there some reason we could not use our air force against the Soviets? Handicap? Would it not save us then too?

    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.

    We did, in fact, have the atom bomb, which you state would be able to “stop” them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Is there some reason we could not use our air force against the Soviets? }

    Yes: there was no Luftwaffe left during the Battle of the Bulge.
    USAF decimated German armor and columns as soon as the skies opened up.They had no defenses left against air attack: sitting ducks.

    USSR had a powerful air force in 1945, although not as powerful as US.
    But powerful enough to defend their ground forces from USAF.

    Atomic bombs were a game changer.
    But under what pretext was US going to use it against SU in 1945, an ally, as far as the American public was concerned. And Stalin had already gone as far West as he could. He wasn't going to fight the US directly, who were already in West Berlin/West Germany.

    But even if US found some pretext to drop atomic bombs on SU unprovoked, I am not sure if SU would fold. The two atom bombs killed ~200K Japanese civilians. A country that did not fold after losing 25 million people, would hardly flinch even after losing an additional 2-3 million (10 bombs). Although admittedly the psych effect would be enormous.

    But that's just conjecture on my part.

  154. @MarkinLA
    Churchill knew that Hitler's peace agreements weren't worth the paper they were written on, maybe that's why. Getting rid of Stalin would have been good for everybody but the British always had to fear a Germany more than a Russia due to their position on the map.

    Churchill expressed admiration for both Hitler and Mussolini, and had an interest in things paper:

    In 1937 Churchill said of Hitler, “If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

    David Irving has documented that Churchill’s lavish lifestyle, as well as his son’s chronic gambling debts, were amply covered by The Focus for the Defence of Freedom and Peace, a group founded in 1935 under auspices of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which was associated with Samuel Untermyer’s Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League. The Focus included “various politicians who were hostile to Germany for various reasons, either ideological for Labour Party members, factions within the Conservative Party who were opposed to the Chamberlin-Baldwin anti-war government,” with Winston Churchill at its center — and the main beneficiary. Focus was funded, in the main, by Robert Waley-Cohen, chairman of Shell Oil.

    In other words, Churchill did not negotiate for peace with Germans because he was paid to do the opposite; indeed, his personal financial survival depended upon war, at the cost to the British of their empire.


    Winston Churchill ordered the assassination of Benito Mussolini as part of a plot to destroy potentially compromising secret letters he had sent the Italian dictator, a leading French historian has suggested.

    About that label “dictator,” indicating that leaders exercised power without the democratically expressed, i.e. by vote, of the led people (as Alexander has defined fascism): it’s worth noting that the British public were not given the opportunity to vote for Churchill from the time he took power from Chamberlain, in May 1940, until the first general election of the period, in which Churchill was resoundingly voted out of office. As historians have documented, Churchill’s first act after losing office was to return to the spot in Italy where Mussolini is said to have last been seen with the case of letters from the British leader to Il Duce.

    (Slightly off-topic but worth mentioning: according to his friend and biographer, J. Schechtman, Vladimir Jabotinsky was also an admirer of Mussolini and sought to imitate his muscular style of leadership.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    In 1937(35) Churchill said of Hitler, “If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

    This quote is from a Strand Magazine article as can be seen here:
    https://hansberndulrich.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-truth-about-hitler-churchills-famous-article-in-strand-magazine-nov-1935/

    But reading further you will find that what horrified him about Hitler was The Nights of The Long Knives. Churchill's absolute determination to fight this recrudescence of paganism was genuine though he was not a well-known churchgoer. He didn't need money from Cohen or Shell, since it was his drive in the early days of WWI to secure the energy supplies of the Middle East that gave Shell whatever concessions it had. They owed him, not the other way around. David Irving is an entertaining historian, but his remarkable ability to forgive Hitler everything and Churchill nothing, makes me take his ideas on motivations with a large lump of salt.

    , @MarkinLA
    Somehow I clicked thing wrong and my post at 219 was really meant for you. I wasn't talking to myself.
  155. @DavidH
    The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. The United States and Britain helped.

    The United States suffered about 200,000 fatalities in combat against the Nazis. The Soviet Union lost around 27,000,000 dead, military and civilian. They deserve respect. They don't get any in this article.

    Of course there were many Soviet sympathizers in the U.S. government in 1945. We were allies.

    Did Patton want to betray an ally? If he did, I don't give a damn about how he died.

    The United States suffered about 200,000 fatalities in combat against the Nazis. The Soviet Union lost around 27,000,000 dead, military and civilian.

    Perhaps a better metric of contribution to defeating an enemy is casualties inflicted on the enemy and not casualties sufffered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Hippodrome says, "Perhaps a better metric of contribution to defeating an enemy is casualties inflicted on the enemy and not casualties suffered."

    Or as Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country".
  156. @Anonymous
    Patton was a virulent anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He was planning to go on record and publicly deny the Holocaust and was assassinated as a result:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html

    As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind.

    One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

    “Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.

    “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.”

    Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch.

    Under Patton, Nazis prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.”
     

    Elite Jewry is responsible for both world wars and any student of history is aware of this. Patton wasn’t an antisemite, he just called it like he saw it. There are more Jews in America then anywhere else in the world. They came to America in droves, right before the war started. People are sick of the so-called “chosen” people, with their greed and hatred for all other races, calling us “goyim” and believing we will be their slaves after their “Antichrist” Messiah arrives.

    There was no Jewish holocaust but there was a German and Christian Holocaust. Over 60 million Christians were murdered during WWI and WWII, yet we have no museums or memorials for our dead, not like the jew does (in foreign countries in which people don’t care about the jews anyhow). Every single day we have to read or hear of some article or movie about the jews and their suffering under the “evil” Nazis.

    People are waking up and they are becoming angry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Elite Jewry is responsible for both world wars and any student of history is aware of this."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Imperialism, militarism, the alliance system, and nationalism were the causes for World War I. Nationalism, appeasement, and revenge were the causes for World War II.

    "There was no Jewish holocaust but there was a German and Christian Holocaust."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Stalin and Hitler committed ethnic genocide, with Stalin targeting his political opponents and Hitler focusing on Jews.
  157. @guest
    You seem to be under the delusion that the only way to surrender is unconditionally. The Japanese were trying to surrender. The U.S. wouldn't accept terms, which is why they resorted to the A-bomb. It certainly wasn't because mainland Japan had to be invaded and millions would've been killed, as our propaganda would have you believe. How did they know we weren't going to Morgenthau them? That's why they fought on.

    Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time. Now we pretend there's no victory lest our boot is on the throat of our competitors. Know what? That makes wars more costly and dangerous, plus it makes the aftermath harder because you basically have to conquer and govern them. Who wants that hassle?

    We did, of course, because we wanted to run the world. Not that we admit it.

    “Used to be wars ended on negotiated settlements all the time.”

    Like Versailles 1919? We all know how that worked out, and so did Truman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    The Treaty of Paris, in 1783, seems to have worked out at least halfway OK.
  158. @SolontoCroesus
    Churchill expressed admiration for both Hitler and Mussolini, and had an interest in things paper:

    In 1937 Churchill said of Hitler, "If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."

    David Irving has documented that Churchill's lavish lifestyle, as well as his son's chronic gambling debts, were amply covered by The Focus for the Defence of Freedom and Peace, a group founded in 1935 under auspices of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which was associated with Samuel Untermyer's Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League. The Focus included "various politicians who were hostile to Germany for various reasons, either ideological for Labour Party members, factions within the Conservative Party who were opposed to the Chamberlin-Baldwin anti-war government," with Winston Churchill at its center -- and the main beneficiary. Focus was funded, in the main, by Robert Waley-Cohen, chairman of Shell Oil.

    In other words, Churchill did not negotiate for peace with Germans because he was paid to do the opposite; indeed, his personal financial survival depended upon war, at the cost to the British of their empire.


    Winston Churchill ordered the assassination of Benito Mussolini as part of a plot to destroy potentially compromising secret letters he had sent the Italian dictator, a leading French historian has suggested.


    About that label "dictator," indicating that leaders exercised power without the democratically expressed, i.e. by vote, of the led people (as Alexander has defined fascism): it's worth noting that the British public were not given the opportunity to vote for Churchill from the time he took power from Chamberlain, in May 1940, until the first general election of the period, in which Churchill was resoundingly voted out of office. As historians have documented, Churchill's first act after losing office was to return to the spot in Italy where Mussolini is said to have last been seen with the case of letters from the British leader to Il Duce.

    (Slightly off-topic but worth mentioning: according to his friend and biographer, J. Schechtman, Vladimir Jabotinsky was also an admirer of Mussolini and sought to imitate his muscular style of leadership.)

    In 1937(35) Churchill said of Hitler, “If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

    This quote is from a Strand Magazine article as can be seen here:

    https://hansberndulrich.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-truth-about-hitler-churchills-famous-article-in-strand-magazine-nov-1935/

    But reading further you will find that what horrified him about Hitler was The Nights of The Long Knives. Churchill’s absolute determination to fight this recrudescence of paganism was genuine though he was not a well-known churchgoer. He didn’t need money from Cohen or Shell, since it was his drive in the early days of WWI to secure the energy supplies of the Middle East that gave Shell whatever concessions it had. They owed him, not the other way around. David Irving is an entertaining historian, but his remarkable ability to forgive Hitler everything and Churchill nothing, makes me take his ideas on motivations with a large lump of salt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    what horrified him [Churchill] about Hitler was The Nights of The Long Knives. Churchill’s absolute determination to fight this recrudescence of paganism was genuine though he was not a well-known churchgoer.
     
    Not being a "well-known churchgoer," WC apparently missed the sermon on Feeding the Hungry, thus his overlordship of the Bengal famine:

    "In 1943, some 3 million brown-skinned subjects of the Raj died in the Bengal famine, one of history's worst. Mukerjee delves into official documents and oral accounts of survivors to paint a horrifying portrait of how Churchill, as part of the Western war effort, ordered the diversion of food from starving Indians to already well-supplied British soldiers and stockpiles in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, including Greece and Yugoslavia. And he did so with a churlishness that cannot be excused on grounds of policy: Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet."
    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html
     
    Ivan wrote:

    "He didn’t need money from Cohen or Shell, since it was his drive in the early days of WWI to secure the energy supplies of the Middle East that gave Shell whatever concessions it had. They owed him, not the other way around. "
     
    The Iranians have somethings to say on the situation, inasmuch as they played the key role in supplying the oil:

    After Baron de Reuter secured another mining concession in 1889, unsuccessful exploration proceeded in Semnān and the Persian Gulf area.

    French reports in Annales des mines (l892) on the availability of oil in the Qaṣr-e Šīrīn region soon prompted new activities, spearheaded by de Reuter’s agent, Edouard Cotte, and Iran’s customs director, Ketābčī Khan. The latter traveled abroad to interest French and British financiers in oil exploration; with the assistance of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, formerly the British minister in Tehran, he entered negotiations with the British financier William Knox D’Arcy. After handsome bribes to key Persian officials and active support from the British minister in Tehran, Sir Arthur Harding, a concession was granted to D’Arcy on 28 May 1901 by Moẓaffar-al-dīn Shah.

    . . . The sixty-year contract gave D’Arcy exclusive rights to explore, obtain, and market oil, natural gas, asphalt, and ozocerite. In return, D’Arcy agreed to pay the Iranian government ₤20,000 in cash, ₤20,000 in stocks, and sixteen percent of the annual profits. This agreement paved the way for the formation of D’Arcy’s First Exploitation Company in 1903, and the search for marketable oil in Iran began in earnest (B. Shwadran, The Middle East, Oil and the Great Powers, 3rd ed., New York, 1973, pp. 14-16).

    In 1905, the company discovered small quantities of oil, and three years later, a rich well was struck in Masǰed-e Solaymān near the Persian Gulf (M. Fāteḥ, Panǰāh sāl naft-e Īrān, Tehran, 1335 Š./1956, pp. 245-54).

    British government involvement in the oil concession was intimately connected with the imminent conversion of the Royal Navy to oil fuel. [In 1908 WC joined Lloyd George in opposing the construction of Dreadnoughts - ed] The British provided indirect financial assistance and political backing to D’Arcy’s company, and in 1909, through complicated financial arrangements and intricate political maneuvers, the original D’Arcy concession became the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC; cf. N. S. Fatemi, Oil Diplomacy: Powderkeg in Iran, New York, 1954, pp. 11-17).
    The company also acquired the rights and shares of the First Exploitation Company and later, of the British-created Bakhtiari Oil Company. D’Arcy became a director of the new conglomerate, a post which he held until his death in 1917. [the conglomerate that D'Arcy formed was competitor to Marcus Samuel's Royal Dutch Shell. - ed] The British government foothold in Iranian affairs was solidified by a 1914 Act of Parliament which effectively gave the government control over APOC through ownership of fifty-three percent of the shares and the privilege of appointing two ex officio directors with veto powers over all acts of the company and its subsidiaries. A thirty-year contract between the Admiralty and the company ensured a steady supply of oil to the Royal Navy at substantially reduced prices.

    Expansion and development. . . . In Ḵūzestān province, the British had to obtain the consent of the Arab tribal chief, Shaikh Ḵaẓʿal, who controlled the Moḥammera (later Ḵorramšahr) region on the Persian Gulf and paid nominal allegiance to the Iranian government; a 1909 agreement guaranteed his rights in the area and provided him with a handsome amount of cash and a ₤10,000 loan. Soon afterward, Ābādān island in the Ḵaẓʿal territory was selected as the site for an oil refinery: it opened in 1912 with an annual capacity of 120,000 tons and grew to become the largest in the world.

    During World War I the British government made a concerted effort to protect the oil flow from Iran because of its critical importance to the operation of the Royal Navy. A German-instigated Baḵtīārī attack on the pipelines resulted in a temporary interruption of the oil flow and prompted the British to expand their control of southern Iran. Under the direction of Sir Percy Sykes, a military force called the South Persia Rifles was created to protect British oil interests; at British behest it was officially recognized by the Iranian government in 1917.

    At the same time APOC, alleging that Iran was responsible for the pipeline damage assessed at ₤614,000 and that it should bear certain other charges, withheld royalty payments until such time as these claims should be settled.

    Relations between the Iranian government and the APOC were further complicated by the formulation of the 1919 Anglo-Persian Agreement, which was designed to make Iran a British protectorate. A British Treasury official, Sydney Amitage-Smith, was selected to negotiate with the Iranian government. The investigation he initiated clearly found the APOC at fault for non-payment of full dues to Iran as well as for advancing numerous unreasonable demands. In late 1920 Armitage-Smith proposed to the Iranian government an interpretation of the D’Arcy Concession to which APOC had agreed. Simultaneously with this proposal the company waived its aforesaid claims and offered to pay ₤1,000,000 in settlement of Iran’s dues up to the end of March l919.
    Iran accepted the waiver and the payment but not the interpretation considering it to be unfavorable to her interests. Iran claimed that it adversely affected her 16% royalty right under the D’Arcy Concession in respect of the Company’s foreign operations. The agreement violated provisions of the original concession and appeared to be unfavorable to Iranian interests; fearing outright rejection, the Iranian prime minister did not submit it to the Majlis. The APOC, however, continued to operate and expand its activities as if the Amitage-Smith Agreement were legally enforceable. Even the Majlis repudiation of the 1919 Anglo-Persian Agreement at its historic meeting in January, 1921, did not affect the company’s operations. . . .
     
    Since we're talking about Iran, the source of the oil that produced the lucre that kept Churchill comfortably ensconced at Chartwell as well as Allied ships, tanks and planes afloat, a-shooting and aloft over and against Germany (and France, Italy, N Africa, Greece etc.), it should be noted that British exploitation of Iranian lands to supply and ship foodstuffs and other materiel to its own forces and its allies in WWI brought about a famine in Iran that cost the lives of as many as 40 million Iranians. According to Mohammad Gholi Majd in The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919, Iran did not recover demographically from the famine until 1964, when its population equaled that of its pre-famine numbers.

    Remember the holocaust!

    Lebensraum über alles!
  159. @MarkinLA
    Not true.

    Most of the war materiel was completely USSR manufactured. We did send them a lot of machine tools, trucks and canned food. Russia flooded the US in the 90s with old home guard Mosin-Nagants which were the standard rifle of the Soviet Army (as well as captured German K-98s). They had their own unique cartridges and thus their own rifles, pistols, machine guns, tanks, artillery, and anti-tank guns. They had their own aircraft. A few were quite well regarded and known by aircraft aficionados. They also had what many consider the best overall tank in the war - far superior to the Sherman.

    What little we sent them had absolutely NO chance of making a dent against the Germans. When the Germans captured a Russian army in the beginning of the war almost everything was of Russian origin.

    This "we supplied the Russians" meme is so exaggerated by people in the US. The great film "The Unknown War" stated that total US support for the USSR was less than 5%. Not much got through until the wolf-packs were neutralized.

    http://ussr.wikia.com/wiki/Mosin_Nagant

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=134

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=38

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483223/

    Lend Lease
    to Russia From Major Jordan’ Diaries (NY: Harcourt, Brace, 1952)

    A lot were materials they couldn’t manufacture themselves because they lacked the technical skills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The war in the east was as close to hand-to-hand combat as you were likely to see since the invention of the rifle. Just how technological would it need to be? The idea that the Soviets did not have the technical expertise to arm themselves is ridiculous. They build their own tanks, aircraft, rifles and heavy guns. They even built their famous Katyusha rockets. Just what exactly didn't they have the capability to make? The list you gave is mostly raw materials. Why get raw materials if you can't do anything with them?

    Russian weapons designs always seem crude to people in the west. They look poorly finished and half done but work really well for what they are designed for. The many times Olympics winning Toz-35 free pistol is an example.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41

    http://www.pilkguns.com/freepistol.shtml
  160. @Jus' Sayin'...
    My father fought in the Pacific and when the war ended was preparing for the invasion of Japan. He might very likely have died had that occurred. After Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc. the USA was preparing for a horrifically costly invasion. One preparation was a massive order for Purple Hearts, the stock of which is still being used up as a result of the USA's many military misadventures since WW II.

    The strategy of massive aerial bombardment with incendiaries -- which on some nights had caused more casualties than occurred at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki -- had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender. Neither had the gradually tightening noose around the home islands whose inevitable conclusion was a bloody invasion. Something more drastic was required and the atom bomb was the available tool. Even then it took two demonstrations of the weapon before the Japanese finally conceded defeat.

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely -- or indeed at all -- as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    Welcome to Planet Nippon, sister satellite of Planet Germania!

    Read More
  161. @John Jeremiah Smith
    It is August 2016. WWII is 7o years in the past. More than two generations.

    Okay, Ron et al, let's assume Patton was assassinated.

    Now what?

    To quote our dear, sick President-For-Life-To-Be, "at this point, what difference does it make?"

    Hmmm

    You raise a point here about the lack of relevancy of Patton’s murder in the context of modern affairs. The very same point can be made regarding the Holocaust. The Holocaust is no more relevant today than Patton’s murder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You raise a point here about the lack of relevancy of Patton’s murder in the context of modern affairs. The very same point can be made regarding the Holocaust. The Holocaust is no more relevant today than Patton’s murder.
     
    The Holocaust is kept relevant by Israel's control of the MSM. Patton continues to be irrelevant by the same process. Frankly, my real point in regard to Patton is that it makes no difference now if he was assassinated. It also seems doubtful that such revelation would have made much difference in 1945. And, finally, the events of succeeding history took little note and were little affected.
  162. @syonredux
    [Cluttering up a comment thread by inserting enormously long Wikipedia quotes probably isn't good behavior.]

    During Nikita Khrushchev’s rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a window of greater frankness and openness about the extent of aid supplied from the West under the Lend-Lease Act—but it was still clearly forbidden for Soviet authors to suggest that such aid ever made any real difference on the battlefield. Mentions of Lend-Lease in memoirs were always accompanied by disparagement of the quality of the weapons supplied, with American and British tanks and planes invariably portrayed as vastly inferior to comparable Soviet models.

    An oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented “only 4 percent” of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.
     

    But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.
     

    Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer. In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead.
     

    According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow—that is, in the recently formed Kalinin, Western, and Southwestern Fronts. Only 205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types, and most of their strength was concentrated in the Western Front, with the Kalinin Front having only two tank battalions (67 tanks) and the Southwestern Front two tank brigades (30 tanks).

    Given the disruption to Soviet production and Red Army losses, the Soviet Union was understandably eager to put British armor into action as soon as possible. According to Biriukov’s service diary, the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.
     

    The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.
     

    A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.
     

    Lend-Lease aid did not “save” the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow. But the speed at which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union, and at which the Soviet Union was able to put foreign equipment into frontline use, is still an underappreciated part of this story. During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.
     
    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[40][41]
    The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR
    Read More
  163. @SolontoCroesus
    Agree with almost everything you wrote, Rurik, esp. that "Patton was a romantic about war . . . fought in an honorable but ferocious way." R H S Stolfi argues that Hitler was much the same -- Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.

    But there's an internal contradiction in this statement:

    He wanted the Germans to repudiate Nazism and join the Christian, civilized family of the West.
     
    It was the "Christian, civilized family of the West" that firebombed German (and Japanese) civilians; that allowed Zhukov's army to run amok and rape German women; that kept Germans in a state of homelessness and hunger for ~two years until Marshall said Enough; that set up kangaroo courts to kill those "honorable but ferocious German warriors;" and that carried out the psychological re-programming of Germans -- and the concomitant market-making -- through the Books as Weapons program under Eisenhower's command, directed (initially) by James P Warburg.

    In my (jaundiced) view, WWII was a religious war against Christianity, or at least a war that pitted Anglican Christianity against German Christianity, and Jewishness in league with Anglicanism against German Christianity. I deduce this notion from the three categories that Lindbergh named:

    The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp
     
    FDR was raised and educated in staunchly Episcopalian tradition; as Lynne Olsen details in "Those Angry Days," British propagandists sent over a thousand agents to the USA to incite the American masses to war; the Jewish cohort is amply represented by influential Jewish leaders who were very close to Roosevelt; they include Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his Communist spy-sidekick-brain Harry Dexter White, Stephen Wise, Louis Brandeis, assorted Warburgs, Lehmans and Rosenwalds.

    Also significant in making the case that the war with Germany was a war against the "Christian, civilized family of the West" is Suzannah Heschel's strident text titled The Aryan Jesus:
    Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.

    Heschel's work is the only source, in English, that I have been able to find where the work of Walther Grundmann is mentioned. Grundmann led a movement in Germany that attempted to define Christianity, and Jesus, divorced from a Hebrew or Old Testament matrix. Heschel deems this effort antisemitic, which, of course, it is, in once sense: European Christianity is not Semitic (as someone noted recently in a different thread, most Ashkenazi are not Semitic either; genetically, they are "60% European." Now I'm dizzy.)

    In one of Churchill's speeches he declared himself to be the defender of "Christian civilization." Perhaps he was drunk when the Sermon on the Mount was preached.

    Many, many of Germany's great and historic Christian churches were destroyed or damaged -- Allied bombers were capable of sparing certain Ford plants in Germany, so we have to assume there was no care given to protecting the holy places of Christianity in Germany.

    I think a compelling case could be made that there was far more Christianity practiced in Germany and by Nazis than by the "Christian Western Allies."

    It was the “Christian, civilized family of the West” that firebombed German (and Japanese) civilians

    when describing the men who planned the death by fire for the inhabitants of Dresden, I’d prefer they be described as “Christian”, rather than Christian. I kind of see that lot more or less like the “Christian” Zionists who’re clamoring for Palestinian blood, even Christian Palestinian blood, to facilitate their rapture.

    I draw a distinction between the two. My use of the word Christian when describing Patton was as the aspirational kind, that had at one time defined the culture and spirituality of the West, even (or especially) as it flourished under the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. I guess in a way Patton was hoping for Germany to remember or realize their inner ‘American’. Like the way the colonel talks about the ‘gooks’ in this clip. (recently posted on Unz by Priss)

    In my (jaundiced) view, WWII was a religious war against Christianity,

    I would describe it as a race or tribal war on Christendom itself. On our (Western) civilization and on our DNA. It would have been well if it had never been fought in the first place, but some people (the ones foi$ting the world wars) were very big winners indeed. They saw the hated anti-Semites slaughtering each other with wild abandon (sixty + million dead), and out of the carnage and smoking ruins of Europe rose Israel.

    Now they’re trying to foi$t a war between Russia and Europe/NATO

    won’t that be fun?!

    Read More
  164. @Truth
    Elite Jewry is responsible for both world wars and any student of history is aware of this. Patton wasn't an antisemite, he just called it like he saw it. There are more Jews in America then anywhere else in the world. They came to America in droves, right before the war started. People are sick of the so-called "chosen" people, with their greed and hatred for all other races, calling us "goyim" and believing we will be their slaves after their "Antichrist" Messiah arrives.

    There was no Jewish holocaust but there was a German and Christian Holocaust. Over 60 million Christians were murdered during WWI and WWII, yet we have no museums or memorials for our dead, not like the jew does (in foreign countries in which people don't care about the jews anyhow). Every single day we have to read or hear of some article or movie about the jews and their suffering under the "evil" Nazis.

    People are waking up and they are becoming angry.

    “Elite Jewry is responsible for both world wars and any student of history is aware of this.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Imperialism, militarism, the alliance system, and nationalism were the causes for World War I. Nationalism, appeasement, and revenge were the causes for World War II.

    “There was no Jewish holocaust but there was a German and Christian Holocaust.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Stalin and Hitler committed ethnic genocide, with Stalin targeting his political opponents and Hitler focusing on Jews.

    Read More
  165. Regarding the book, Wilcox offers intriguing personalities, plots, and sub-plots. There is major issue, however, regarding Chapter 2, where the author’s speculation and the actual details of the car cash gets jumbled in the narrative. In the end, Wilcox states that the evidence he provides is circumstantial, and not a definitive case.

    Read More
  166. Patton’s gas manager was Leon Hess, who later was better known for Amerada/Hess gas stations and the New York Jets. And he happened to be Jewish. From NYT’s obit:

    “Mr. Hess operated in several spheres: the American business scene, the commercial world of the Middle East, the world of Democratic Party insiders and the behind-the-scenes boardroom meetings of National Football League club owners.

    His father, Mores, had been trained in Lithuania to be a kosher butcher. But when he came to America and settled in New Jersey, he ran a fuel-delivery company. His son, Leon, was born March 14, 1914, in Asbury Park, N.J.

    Mores Hess’s business went bankrupt in 1933, but Leon, while still driving the delivery truck, reorganized the company and oversaw its growth, employing a signature trait: boldness. He built a terminal using old tankers in Perth Amboy, N.J., and aggressively underbid competitors seeking Federal oil contracts.

    In World War II, rising to the rank of major, he had a key, if little-known, position as petroleum supply officer for Gen. George S. Patton. The speed of Patton’s tank attacks was in good measure dependent on fuel that Major Hess provided.”

    Read More
  167. @Hippopotamusdrome


    Saved only by the US Air Force
     

     Is there some reason we could not use our air force against the Soviets? Handicap? Would it not save us then too?


    The only thing that could stop the steamroller was the atom bomb.

     

    We did, in fact, have the atom bomb, which you state would be able to "stop" them.

    {Is there some reason we could not use our air force against the Soviets? }

    Yes: there was no Luftwaffe left during the Battle of the Bulge.
    USAF decimated German armor and columns as soon as the skies opened up.They had no defenses left against air attack: sitting ducks.

    USSR had a powerful air force in 1945, although not as powerful as US.
    But powerful enough to defend their ground forces from USAF.

    Atomic bombs were a game changer.
    But under what pretext was US going to use it against SU in 1945, an ally, as far as the American public was concerned. And Stalin had already gone as far West as he could. He wasn’t going to fight the US directly, who were already in West Berlin/West Germany.

    But even if US found some pretext to drop atomic bombs on SU unprovoked, I am not sure if SU would fold. The two atom bombs killed ~200K Japanese civilians. A country that did not fold after losing 25 million people, would hardly flinch even after losing an additional 2-3 million (10 bombs). Although admittedly the psych effect would be enormous.

    But that’s just conjecture on my part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Stalin knew that the Americans had only two or at most three bombs.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    {Is there some reason we could not use our air force against the Soviets? }

    Yes: there was no Luftwaffe left during the Battle of the Bulge.
     
    Why was there no Luftwaffe left? Did they go on strike? There was no Luftwaffe left because we destroyed it during the Normandy campaign. The same Luftwaffe that had a 1 to 3.3 loss ratio against Russian planes. Destruction of Luftwaffe was America and Britain's doing and not Russia's. In fact, we won air superiority while the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was still in effect.
  168. American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated?

    If one doesn’t agree with the usual mythology, he can expect character assassination at least and physical snuffing at worst. Patton was labeled an anti-Semite (a term which is usually used in a pretty mindless and ridiculous way) as was Charles Linbergh who was also very unfairly smeared as a philanderer.

    I also find it curious that the most prominent “anti-Semite” of them all, Adolph Hitler, had the support and collaboration of Zionists and had been active politically and economically in the oil lands from Palestine to Persia, and we know how all of that worked out.

    I wonder how many WW2 “experts” realize that 3 months prior to the attack on Pearl, the “Allies” launched a surprise attack on Persia (Iran) and sunk or disabled its entire navy, confiscated its oil refining capacity, and worked to establish the “Persian Corridor” through which the US supplied the bloody Joey Stalin everything from toilet paper to locomotives and rolling stock to airplanes and ammo.

    Funny how we hardly ever hear about that.

    Read More
  169. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Wilcox had managed to place short pieces of his own somewhere, including the New York Post in 2010″

    Yeah, he only placed an article in the 6th most read newspaper in the US. And was given air time on the most popular cable news channel. Total media cover up, man.

    Read More
  170. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Let’s suppose that the entire MSM covered up the story both at the time and for decades afterward.
     
    A supposition? Seems more like a safe assumption. Can you think of a single cover-up of government criminal activity the MSM has exposed? Excluding personal vendettas, the frequent sexual escapades and individual efforts at fraud, extortion, etc. common among petty officials, of course. Truly egregious examples, such as the murders and destruction of Americans and American materiel by Israel in 1967, remain aggressively and persistently quashed. There no reason to believe media-control will ever stop.

    Shouldn’t that make us very, very cautious about totally discounting various much more recent and relevant “conspiracy theories” because they have been ignored or pooh-poohed by the entire MSM?
     
    For the public at large? How are you going to accomplish that? Sure, there are people like us, who have learned over time that the MSM do the bidding of those who hold power. I see no available path to Truth and Integrity in government and media. A fatuous fantasy, at best.

    There are ruminations about that the US public no longer implicitly trusts the media, that polls may be inaccurate because Americans now conceal their true opinions, saving them for expression in the voting booth. Who is telling us that? The media. What does it matter to them? Their power is absolute, their control well-within the capability of producing any set of options desired by those in power.

    Yes, things will eventually get so bad that America, or parts of it, will revolt. That tempest will be quelled -- ruthlessly -- before spilling out of the teapot . The weaponry available to the modern totalitarian police state permits no successful revolutions.

    I'm sure tomorrow's gruel will be delicious.

    Their power is absolute, their control well-within the capability of producing any set of options desired by those in power.

    almost

    I saw chinks in the armor during their ‘crossed red line’ scramble to bomb Syria (into the stone age) and carve it up (for Israel)

    the people of both England and US said ‘hell no’, and that was something to witness for this cynic of cynics

    the net is having an effect, even if clumsy and inept

    were it not for the Internet and independent voices, Trump’s campaign would have crashed and burned on takeoff

    (I’m not saying Trump is the messiah, I’m only saying that it seems like they (the MSM/PTB) hate his guts)

    so as bad as it is, (and it is very, very bad) there does seem to be some tiny, infinitesimal shred hope

    we are not yet at war with Russia

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I saw chinks in the armor during their ‘crossed red line’ scramble to bomb Syria (into the stone age) and carve it up (for Israel)
     
    Yes, noted. I've pondered that a bit. I suspect conflicts of interest within the 1% have left Syria to a conflict of lesser powers

    .the people of both England and US said ‘hell no’, and that was something to witness for this cynic of cynics
     
    I think that is temporary. A method will be found to make Fido wag his tail again.

    the net is having an effect, even if clumsy and inept
     
    Activities to disempower the Net are "full speed ahead". As a means for the people to challenge authority, its days are numbered.

    so as bad as it is, (and it is very, very bad) there does seem to be some tiny, infinitesimal shred hope
     
    Much like the Count of Monte Cristo could see a sliver of the sky from his dungeon?
  171. @utu
    "During the Battle of Stalingrad, Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR)" - Never heard of that. Any reference?

    {Any reference?}

    Sorry, No.
    I have never been able to find any reference to that in Western sources.
    The is probably some obscure book that mentions it, but Google cannot find it.

    It was common knowledge in Armenia SSR, where I am originally from.
    WW2 war vets, old timers, discussed it all the time…..seeing more Red Army troops and military hardware assembling near the borders of Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR than they’d ever seen before. Then, they were all gone….

    I understand it is no independent reference: just my recollection.
    If I ever find a source, will post it at a relevant thread.

    Read More
  172. @Jus' Sayin'...
    My father fought in the Pacific and when the war ended was preparing for the invasion of Japan. He might very likely have died had that occurred. After Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc. the USA was preparing for a horrifically costly invasion. One preparation was a massive order for Purple Hearts, the stock of which is still being used up as a result of the USA's many military misadventures since WW II.

    The strategy of massive aerial bombardment with incendiaries -- which on some nights had caused more casualties than occurred at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki -- had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender. Neither had the gradually tightening noose around the home islands whose inevitable conclusion was a bloody invasion. Something more drastic was required and the atom bomb was the available tool. Even then it took two demonstrations of the weapon before the Japanese finally conceded defeat.

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely -- or indeed at all -- as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    A high school knowledge of WW II history casts doubt on your assertion that the USA used its A bombs solely — or indeed at all — as a demonstration for Stalin. Do you have any documentary evidence?

    Well, there are many who would argue that high school is designed to brainwash compliant, non-thinking, state worshiping drones, so awareness of that concept casts doubt on your claims as well.

    I doubt your high school gym qua “history” teachers would be able to produce any sort of documentary evidence for much of what they regurgitated, so why do you make the demand of others? Heck, I doubt if many of them even would understand such a request.

    Too bad that so many never question or move beyond anything they heard in high school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well, there are many who would argue that high school is designed to brainwash compliant, non-thinking, state worshiping drones, so awareness of that concept casts doubt on your claims as well."

    Right, the tired "Cultural Marxism" argument, which is complete nonsense. You would be surprised that today's high school history teachers generally incorporate documents from the time period that delve into "controversial" topics.
  173. @Wizard of Oz
    Well I don't seem to have prompted you to start down the path of moderation, restraint and reflection. A pity. I'm sorry.

    Well I don’t seem to have prompted you to start down the path of moderation, restraint and reflection. A pity. I’m sorry.

    I assure you the burden of sorrow rests on my shoulders, not yours. May I suggest you may be happier, in the long run, simply blocking my posts?

    Read More
  174. @Israel Shamir
    Whoever killed Patton (the Russians or the Americans) did a good thing - otherwise there would be a USSR-US war in 1945, as Churchill wanted and demanded. If Patton would get to power, he and Churchill would unleash the most horrible war. Mind you, many Russian soldiers and officers of that time thought it would be good to fight to the very end and place the Red banner on the Capitol Hill. The Red Army was very strong then. So it was good to get rid of Patton and bring peace. Naturally kudos to Ron Unz for uncovering the story!

    So it was good to get rid of Patton and bring peace.

    well, with all due respect sir, I disagree

    Eastern Europe was handed over to a mortal fiend who crushed their spirit (the ones he didn’t murder outright) and enslaved them for generations

    (if communism isn’t slavery, I don’t know what it is. What is slavery if not having every aspect of your life controlled and being forced to toil for the benefit of others?)

    and the effects of that terrible war(s) are even being felt today, as the Fiend is marching NATO right up to the Russian bear, and forcing a conflict.

    it would have been well for the world for men like Patton to throttle Stalin’s goons and to speak out and question what was done to Europe and for whom. If Patton were at Yalta, would all of those heroic men who fought to keep the Red Army from ravaging their lands have been Keelhauled? I don’t think so.

    the events of WWII and how that contrived, Satanic apocalypse changed the world and set in motion the way things are today, deserves a lot of scrutiny, if you ask me. But rather we’re all supposed to believe as fact the narrative that has slithered out of the bowels of the winning side, where it’s been turned into a cartoon-like conflict with one side being considered the epitome of evil and the other side as virtuous, valiant and heroic as man has ever been.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    There was massive good and massive evil on both sides, and a man like Patton might have helped to make us all understand that a little better. And that would have been a good thing.

    IMHO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    "Eastern Europe was handed over" at Yalta. Patton could not change that on the battlefield.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    (if communism isn’t slavery, I don’t know what it is. What is slavery if not having every aspect of your life controlled and being forced to toil for the benefit of others?)

    "No man is more enslaved than he who falsely believes himself to be free." Goethe.

    Present day Americans? British? Canadians? Australians? New Zealanders?
  175. @Andrei Martyanov

    but Patton’s repeated argument was that although the Soviet military forces were enormously large and powerful, their supply-lines were extremely weak and over-extended.
     
    Review of the operations around Berlin and prior to it--in Pomerania actually testify to diametrically opposite. As Glantz and House assess Red Army's lines of communications throughout third (last) phase of WW II, they called it a "prodigious feats" in supplying a very sustained and massive Red Army's offensive operations for months. The question here is purely speculative and....operational--could Red Army defend against Allies? Undoubtedly so, considering the scale and combat experience of the Red Army by 1945 Patton's ideas sound amateurish at best, insane--at worst.

    Also, Patton thought that large portions of the surrendered German military could be effectively used in the anti-Soviet military campaign. One of the things that got him into lots of political trouble was his unauthorized effort to quietly keep various German military formations intact and available for use.
     
    Yes, Patton considered Russians to be Asiatic untermench. In reality, a lot of what Patton conveyed was a case of pure professional jealousy, the fact superbly described by David Eisenhower in his seminal historic dedication to his notable grandfather, Ike. Asiatic "motives" are not unique only to Patton, e.g. late Rear-Admiral Kemp Tolley (whom I had a privilege to talk to many times) who served as a deputy Naval Attache in USSR during 1942-44 also thought Russians to be somewhat Asiatic, which never prevented him from marrying a Russian woman, admire Admiral Arsenii Golovko (Northern Fleet Commander) and be very close friends with then superintendent of my Naval Academy Rear-Admiral Ramishvili. Tolley, certainly, didn't want to fight US Soviet allies. What a difference.

    Reading between the lines of many of Patton’s statements in 1945, it seemed like he’d half-concluded that America had actually fought WWII on the wrong side, and if one of America’s most famous generals came home and began a national public speaking tour making exactly that argument, there might have been all sorts of domestic political problems, especially given all the Communist spies who were then still near the top of the U.S. government.
     
    That might be true (or not)--but my point was that Patton's merits as a military leader, while not small, were greatly exaggerated for the narrative. Hence this never ending soap opera with the possibility of Allies fighting Red Army. Patton is mentioned only once by Hitler (he called him crazy cowboy) a rather humble standing with the enemy. The only "threat" Patton could possibly provide for the Red Army or USSR was his ridiculously big mouth. Militarily Patton wasn't even close to the league of Bradley and Ike, let alone people such as Rokossovsky or Vasilevsky or, for that matter, Marshal. I don't think communist "spies" really would have any reasons to kill a guy who was at most secondary to the overall Allied Victory.

    IDK, look at this brilliantly planned strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    look at this brilliantly planned strike
     
    Yes, a remarkable feat of military leadership.