The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
General Patton U.S. commemorative stamp, issued in 1953.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
General Patton U.S. commemorative stamp, issued in 1953. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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.

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 509 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    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.”

  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?

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    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.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    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.

  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

    • Agree: Avenge Harambe
    • Replies: @TomO
    , @Anonymous
  6. Ed says:

    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.

  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.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  8. Clyde says:

    Yeah right Patton 3¢ stamp my guess is 1954 or five. Not gonna look it up/

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  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.

  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.

  12. Avery says:

    {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.

  13. @Clyde

    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.

    • Replies: @Clyde
  14. dearieme says:

    I’ve never come across this notion before. I have, however, seen speculation that Patton had become clinically insane.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  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?

    • Replies: @Antiwar7
  16. ic1000 says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    , @Ron Unz
  17. JackOH says:

    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.

  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

  19. annamaria says:
    @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.” – 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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  20. annamaria says:
    @Avery

    “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.

  21. @Carlton Meyer

    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.

  22. @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @Wally
  23. @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @Ace
    , @Rudel
  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.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  25. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    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.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Anonymous
  27. dahoit says:
    @Avery

    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.

  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.

  29. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @dahoit

    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.

  30. @TheDaughter

    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?

    • Replies: @TheDaughter
  31. Wally says: • Website

    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.

  32. DavidH says:

    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.

  33. @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @guest
    , @Eileen Kuch
  34. Wally says: • Website
    @Quartermaster

    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

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Boris
  35. Rehmat says:
    @Anonymous

    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/

  36. Wally says: • Website
    @Andrei Martyanov

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

    Much better now, however.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  37. Rehmat says:

    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/

  38. @annamaria

    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?

  39. @dahoit

    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

  40. @EvolutionistX

    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.

  41. JamesG says:
    @dahoit

    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.

  42. @annamaria

    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.

  43. @ic1000

    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.

  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?”

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @DDearborn
  45. @Andrei Martyanov

    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?

  46. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

  47. @Lawrence Fitton

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

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  48. @annamaria

    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?

  49. @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.

  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.

  51. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris Bridges

    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

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  52. CK says:
    @Avery

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
  53. Hepp says:

    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.

  54. @TheDaughter

    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.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    , @TheDaughter
  55. @Planet Albany

    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.

  56. guest says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    “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.

  57. Alfa158 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @guest
    , @Anonymous
    , @Hibernian
  58. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    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.

  59. guest says:
    @Anonymous

    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!”

    • Replies: @Ragno
  60. @Wally

    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…

  61. guest says:
    @Alfa158

    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.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Incitatus
    , @aeolius
  62. Ron Unz says:
    @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.

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

  63. @Wizard of Oz

    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?

    • Replies: @TheDaughter
  64. guest says:
    @Avery

    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.

    • Replies: @Avery
  65. manton says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  66. guest says:
    @dahoit

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

  67. Ron Unz says:
    @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.”

    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.

  68. Outwest says:
    @DavidH

    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.

    • Replies: @DavidH
    , @MarkinLA
  69. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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

  70. Ron Unz says:
    @Planet Albany

    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.

    • Replies: @Planet Albany
  71. Ron Unz says:
    @manton

    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.

  72. @Wizard of Oz

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

  73. DavidH says:
    @Outwest

    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.

    • Replies: @DavidH
    , @Hibernian
  74. @James Kabala

    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.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Alfa158

    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.

  76. Ron Unz says:
    @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…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…

  77. DavidH says:
    @DavidH

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

  78. Ron Unz says:
    @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?”

    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?

  79. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    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.

  80. Drakejax says:

    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?

  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.

  82. Drakejax says:
    @Ron Unz

    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.

  83. @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
  84. @Ron Unz

    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.

  85. bluedog says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    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..!!!

  86. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    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.

  87. @Ron Unz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Rurik
  88. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    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.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  89. @Ron Unz

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
  90. utu says:
    @MInnesota Mary

    “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.

    • Replies: @Alden
  91. JackOH says:

    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?

  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.

  93. utu says:
    @Planet Albany

    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.

  94. Mark Caplan says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    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.

  95. Chuck says:

    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.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  96. @Anonymous

    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?

  97. Antiwar7 says:
    @OilcanFloyd

    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.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  98. @Regnum Nostrum

    “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.

  99. @Chuck

    “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.

  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.

  101. Boris says:

    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

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  102. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Best comments so far-anyone care to address them?

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  103. MarkinLA says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  104. Ron Unz says:
    @Boris

    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.

    • Replies: @Boris
  105. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  106. MarkinLA says:
    @Outwest

    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/

  107. @MarkinLA

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @MarkinLA
  108. MarkinLA says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Rudel
  109. MarkinLA says:
    @Ron Unz

    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.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  110. @DavidH

    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

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  111. Mulegino1 says:

    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.

  112. MarkinLA says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

  113. syonredux says:
    @MarkinLA

    [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

  114. MarkinLA says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

  115. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wally

    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”.

  116. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  117. MarkinLA says:
    @mr. meener

    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”.

    • Replies: @mr. meener
  118. @Rurik

    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.”

    • Replies: @Rurik
  119. TomO says:
    @Emblematic

    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.

  120. Boris says:
    @Ron Unz

    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.

  121. @MarkinLA

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  122. @Ron Unz

    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.

  123. Ron Unz says:
    @MarkinLA

    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.

    • Replies: @Avery
  124. MarkinLA says:
    @syonredux

    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.

  125. MarkinLA says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

  126. Avery says:
    @guest

    {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.

    • Replies: @Ace
  127. @annamaria

    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.

  128. Avery says:
    @Ron Unz

    {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.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Ace
    , @Rudel
  129. Ivan says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

  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…

  131. Ron Unz says:
    @Avery

    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…

  132. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Clyde
  133. utu says:
    @Avery

    “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?

    • Replies: @5371
    , @Avery
  134. utu says:
    @CK

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Ace
  135. @TheDaughter

    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?

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  136. dfordoom says: • Website
    @guest

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  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?

  138. @Astuteobservor II

    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.

  139. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Regnum Nostrum

    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.

  140. @MarkinLA

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  141. 5371 says:
    @utu

    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.

  142. rod1963 says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    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.

  143. @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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  144. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @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.

  145. hbm says:

    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.

  146. Clyde says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Yes indeed and was running through my mind too :)

  147. Clyde says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Very prissy from you, U need a hookup with the francon factory.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  148. Clyde says:
    @Ron Unz

    Too many tentatives in yr post.

  149. @Anonymous

    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!

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @The Alarmist
    , @George
  150. @Andrei Martyanov

    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.

  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

  152. @dahoit

    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

  153. @Avery

    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.

    • Replies: @Avery
  154. @MarkinLA

    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.)

    • Replies: @Ivan
    , @MarkinLA
  155. @DavidH

    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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  156. Truth says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  157. Incitatus says:
    @guest

    “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.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  158. Ivan says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  159. @MarkinLA

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  160. Incitatus says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Welcome to Planet Nippon, sister satellite of Planet Germania!

  161. DDearborn says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  162. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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?!

  163. Corvinus says:
    @Truth

    “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.

    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
  164. Corvinus says:

    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.

  165. Bugg says:

    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.”

  166. Avery says:
    @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.
    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.

    • Replies: @Ivan
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  167. 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.

  168. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “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.

  169. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  170. Avery says:
    @utu

    {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.

  171. @Jus' Sayin'...

    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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  172. @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.

    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?

  173. Rurik says:
    @Israel Shamir

    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.

    • Replies: @George
    , @NoseytheDuke
  174. @Rurik

    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?

  175. Ivan says:
    @Avery

    Stalin knew that the Americans had only two or at most three bombs.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  176. @DDearborn

    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.

  177. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    “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.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  178. @Clyde

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  179. Corvinus says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    “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.

  180. @MarkinLA

    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

    • Replies: @Avery
  181. @Ivan

    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:

    [MORE]

    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!

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Ivan
  182. Joe says:

    http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/12/general-pattons-warning/ Very relevant article by William Pierce, an American physicist – turned National Socialist

  183. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Marcus

    look at this brilliantly planned strike

    Yes, a remarkable feat of military leadership.

  184. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Long rumored.

    If true, it shouldn’t surprise.

    Patton was a seriously mentally unbalanced person.

    He was a psychopath, and he had other problems, likely a degree of schizophrenia.

    He did not accept the negotiated division of Europe after the war.

    Given his mental problems and headstrong readiness to act, he was genuinely dangerous.

    He might well have started a new war over the ashes of the old.

  185. husq says:

    Nothing is as it seems:

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @anon
  186. @Corvinus

    ah, but you miss a key fact that colors all NSDAP actions regarding German Jews from 1933 forward: It was the directive of the head of the most influential zionist organization at the time, Louis Brandeis, that “All German Jews are urged to leave Germany . . . all 587,000 of them.”

    Rabbi Stephen Wise recorded the conversation, that took place “within a fortnight of der Führer’s appointment,” i.e. on or before Feb. 14, 1933, in his autobiography, The Challenging Years, p. 242 iirc.

    Edwin Black quoted the exchange between Brandeis and Wise in The Transfer Agreement.

    There are dozens of lines of argument about why this fact is critical; I try to select a few of the most important, but first a bit of background:

    The zionist movement and project was driven by Eastern European (Russian and Polish-Lithuanian etc.) Jews: Marci Shore wrote in “Taste of Ashes” that Zionism and Communism were twin Jewish ideologies (see below ***). Russian (East European, etc) Jews were eager zionists; German Jews opposed zionism and were not eager to migrate to Palestine. Allen Brownfeld has spoken and written often on the conflicts over zionism within the broader Jewish community.

    At the same time, the Third Reich leadership sought to be protective of its old-line German Jews while seeking to dismiss from Germany those Polish, Russian and Communist Jews who had flooded into Germany in the wake of the Russian and German revolutions. We can know this from a May, 1933 report in the Jewish Telegraph Agency on comments by Hans Luther, German ambassador to the US. http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts

    1. So the first question to ask of Brandeis’s directive is, Why German Jews? Why the insistence that GERMAN Jews leave Germany, where, as Hans Luther noted, they were safe; as Richard Breitman and Allen Lichtman wrote in FDR and the Jews, “Once they had consolidated power, Nazis calmed personal violence against Jews . . . No Jews were sent to concentration camps until mid-November 1938 . . .;” as Rabbi Wise himself noted in his autobiography, “German Jews sent to him many, many letters pleading with zionists in the USA and elsewhere to cease their provocations of Germany’s government; as organized Jewish groups in Germany wrote in petitions to American zionist groups that they were not displeased with the various legal mechanisms that clarified and defined the Jewish position in the Third Reich — German Jews wished to remain in Germany.

    a. But as Edwin Black explains in The Transfer Agreement, the zionist project in Palestine was running out of funds, and British regulations required that only Jews who came with at least (the equivalent of) $5000 could enter Palestine. Only German Jews had that kind of wealth.

    [MORE]

    b. Furthermore, as Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote in 1935, among the three key goals of the zionist agenda was the “ingathering of all the diaspora to Palestine.”

    But German Jews were not on board with the zionist agenda, and they did not wish to leave Germany.
    They required incentivization.
    Rabbi Wise, and his son, the otherwise ne’er do well James Waterman Wise, and a whole boatload of Jewish provocateurs and shit-stirrers provided the provocations that would make life miserable for German Jews until they acquiesced to the zionist scheme.

    Although Alexander would probably call Francis Nicosia a Hitler lover, inasmuch as Nicosia has researched and written extensively about Nazi Germany, he is not. Nicosia does, however, report that in the early years of the Third Reich, zionist Jews created a “division of the Haganah, the Mossad le Aliyah Bet, (the Committee for Illegal Immigration), to assist German Jews to leave Germany and violate the British restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine. ” German authorities supported the activities of the Mossad; Mossad offices were in close proximity to Gestapo headquarters and the two groups coordinated activities, with the caveat that Germans did not participate in violating British border regulations. (Given the presence of zionist agents in Germany in the pre-war years, including their most active period, 1938, it is not implausible to speculate that Mossad le Aliyah Bet acted as agents provocateurs in the events of so-called Kristallnacht.)

    2. A second question to ask is, Why was Brandeis not concerned about getting Eastern European Jews out of Poland, Russia, Hungary, etc., where their numbers were largest, and the threats to their security were greatest, and where, indeed, the greatest number of Jews were killed? After all, Rabbi Wise had been writing since at least 1900 that “6 million Jews in Russia faced a holocaust!” Why not exert efforts to save those Jews who were committed to zionist plan, rather than German Jews who were not?

    One rather dreadful answer is supplied by Etan Bloom of Tel Aviv University, in his study of the work of Arthur Ruppin in the “Production of Hebrew Culture in Palestine.” Ruppin was an award-winning eugenicist who did not consider Eastern European Jews suitable “human material” for the “new Jew” to be created to populate the zionist project in Palestine. According to Bloom, One group of Eastern European Jews had to be sent back home because they could not make the grade. google it.

    3. A third question is, Did Brandeis’s directive that “all Jews must leave Germany” portend the destruction of Germany? Recall that shortly after he built a residence for Chaim Weizmann in Rehovath (that is, ~1938), Erich Mendelsohn participated in perfecting the ability of American Air Force to create firestorms that would consume workers housing — and the workers — in Berlin, home to Germany’s largest population of Jews.

    A corollary question is, How many German Jews died in the firebombing of 75% of Germany’s cities? Do holocaust museums commemorate the German Jews who died in Allied firebombing raids on Germany (as well as France and Italy)? These questions lead this Nazi-loving Hitler-worshipping antisemite to speculate: When Nazis removed Jews from German cities, and from France, and from Italy, was it for the protection of Jews who would otherwise have been harmed in Allied firebombing raids? After all, as Rafael Medoff recorded in a paper discussing a Jew-vs-Jew spat over labeling in holocaust museums, in early June 1944 the Jewish Agency in Tel Aviv, headed by David ben Gurion, decided not to request the Allies to bomb Auschwitz because “they believed that Auschwitz was a labor camp,” and the Jewish Agency “did not wish to be responsible for harm to a single Jewish person.”

    As stated above, we know that the German government collaborated with zionist agents to move Jews to safety outside of Germany.
    In David Engel’s 8-hour lecture series, he recounts that “Nazis had a plan to re-settle Jews in the East.”
    We have inklings of awareness that Jewish bankers and other zionists supported the NSDAP.
    We know that many German Jews retained significant commercial interests in Germany, even during the hottest part of the war.
    We know that Ernst Hanfstaengel, who nurtured a friendship with both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, encouraged Hitler to write Mein Kampf; provided financing to Hitler to publish the book; informed FDR of the talents of Hitler; financed and supported Hitler in the aftermath of the failed putsch; “defected” to USA and was safe-harbored by the FDR administration to provide information on NSDAP in the course of the hot war.
    We know from Communist films such as Council of the Gods that German and American corporate interests viewed Hitler as a useful rabble-rouser and motivator of the masses.

    Was Hitler a tool of zionists, including FDR’s administration, used to ensure that German Jews — and others (French and Italian) — would be removed from harm’s way as the Allies turned Germany (and selected French & Italian locales) into Carthage; and was Eichmann the coordinating tool to ensure that, consistent with Ruppin’s eugenics theories as well as Ledeen’s version of the destructive nature of Moses and the Levites, undesirable Jews would be dealt with less propitiously?
    Was Louis Brandeis the Caesare Borgia who used Hitler and Eichmann as Borgia used Orca, then split him/them in two and displayed his mutilated corpse to scare the shit out of the remaining populace?

    [in a there-inch block it's difficult to know where one started, and other tasks beckon.
    Enough.]

    —-

    *** An important theme of the book is Shore’s assessment of the common roots of Zionism and Communism. This is the subject of the middle and longest chapter of the book, and something she researches during her peregrinations through Eastern Europe. The kibbutzim and the collective arose from the same social environment in Eastern Europe, with Jews at the core of each movement. In building a new culture, the Zionists suppressed Yiddish, the language of the old world. Communism banished religion, and Stalin purged Jews; nonetheless, some remained important communist figures in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland. The post-war world was a confused world, and little turned out as the dreamers had dreamed. The Taste of Ashes.

    PS Deep apologies to Alexander for the sin of relying upon actual facts and writings of, primarily, Jewish authors and their “obscure information” to “legitimize” this composition.

  187. Boris says:
    @Wally

    This is an example of why you don’t read all the comments here at Unz. Unless you’re looking for idiots to mock.

  188. @husq

    Notice that the narrator repeats and repeats that “the British” bombed Nordhausen, on Apr. 3.

    But @ 2:16 the Jewish doctor in the striped shirt says, “All of a sudden, we looked up and AMERICAN bombers . . . the whole camp . . . and then they came back and strafed us . . .”

    If I recall correctly, the British did mostly night bombings while Americans carried out daytime raids.

  189. Incitatus says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

  190. Avery says:
    @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}

    Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

    US & UK (would that be the “we”?) did not save SU from Nazi Germany.
    SU saved the whole of Europe from the Nazi jackboot: Nazis rolled up the whole of Europe in a matter of months.

    “We” did not (really) fight Nazi Germany: SU did.
    As has been pointed out numerous times, 80% of Wehrmacht, their best toughest divisions, were destroyed on the Eastern front.

    It is an open secret that Churchill was hoping Hitler and Stalin would annihilate each other. That is why US&UK did not land in Europe until 1944, despite Stalin pleadings. SU defeated Nazis all on its own: US helped some, but nothing that made a big difference.

    In 1944 the Red Army was almost at the border of Germany, racing towards Berlin. US&UK realized that if they didn’t land, the Red Army would race all the way to the Channel.

    At Dunkirk, British troops ran like chickens, and were not annihilated only because for some unexplained reasons, Germans stopped short.
    At the Battle of the Bulge, depleted German forces, short of everything, routed US troops. Save for the heroic defense of Bastogne, US troops ran. Until the skies opened up, and USAF wiped the Germans out.

    The titanic battles in the East – Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk,..- were fought and won by the Red Army.

    Live with it.

  191. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    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”.

  192. @Corvinus

    Right, the tired “Cultural Marxism” argument, which is complete nonsense.

    Right. Nothing like a really vacuous straw man argument to make one feel smug.

    In fact, forced assembly line mass schooling is largely nonsense as well, but I suppose it does free up mom and dad to join the tax and wage slave crowd in addition to keeping the “little ones” off the street somewhat in preparation for their unquestioning participation of the some similar soulless treadmill experience.

    Keep da faith, Bro!

  193. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    From Wiki:

    “The speech later became so popular that it was called simply “Patton’s speech” or “The speech” when referencing the general.”

    “Be seated.

    Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.

    You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would be killed in a major battle. Every man is scared in his first action. If he says he’s not, he’s a goddamn liar. But the real hero is the man who fights even though he’s scared. Some men will get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour, and for some it takes days. But the real man never lets his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.

    [MORE]

    All through your army career you men have bitched about what you call ‘this chicken-shit drilling.’ That is all for a purpose—to ensure instant obedience to orders and to create constant alertness. This must be bred into every soldier. I don’t give a fuck for a man who is not always on his toes. But the drilling has made veterans of all you men. You are ready! A man has to be alert all the time if he expects to keep on breathing. If not, some German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of shit. There are four hundred neatly marked graves in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job—but they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before his officer did.

    An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, and fights as a team. This individual hero stuff is bullshit. The bilious bastards who write that stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know any more about real battle than they do about fucking. And we have the best team—we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor bastards we’re going up against.

    All the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters. Every single man in the army plays a vital role. So don’t ever let up. Don’t ever think that your job is unimportant. What if every truck driver decided that he didn’t like the whine of the shells and turned yellow and jumped headlong into a ditch? That cowardly bastard could say to himself, ‘Hell, they won’t miss me, just one man in thousands.’ What if every man said that? Where in the hell would we be then? No, thank God, Americans don’t say that. Every man does his job. Every man is important. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the quartermaster is needed to bring up the food and clothes for us because where we are going there isn’t a hell of a lot to steal. Every last damn man in the mess hall, even the one who boils the water to keep us from getting the GI shits, has a job to do.

    Each man must think not only of himself, but think of his buddy fighting alongside him. We don’t want yellow cowards in the army. They should be killed off like flies. If not, they will go back home after the war, goddamn cowards, and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the goddamn cowards and we’ll have a nation of brave men.

    One of the bravest men I saw in the African campaign was on a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were moving toward Tunis. I stopped and asked him what the hell he was doing up there. He answered, ‘Fixing the wire, sir.’ ‘Isn’t it a little unhealthy up there right now?’ I asked. ‘Yes sir, but this goddamn wire has got to be fixed.’ I asked, ‘Don’t those planes strafing the road bother you?’ And he answered, ‘No sir, but you sure as hell do.’ Now, there was a real soldier. A real man. A man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty appeared at the time.

    And you should have seen the trucks on the road to Gabès. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they crawled along those son-of-a-bitch roads, never stopping, never deviating from their course with shells bursting all around them. Many of the men drove over 40 consecutive hours. We got through on good old American guts. These were not combat men. But they were soldiers with a job to do. They were part of a team. Without them the fight would have been lost.

    Sure, we all want to go home. We want to get this war over with. But you can’t win a war lying down. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the bastards who started it. We want to get the hell over there and clean the goddamn thing up, and then get at those purple-pissing Japs. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. So keep moving. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper-hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler.

    When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a Boche will get him eventually. The hell with that. My men don’t dig foxholes. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have or ever will have. We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket.

    Some of you men are wondering whether or not you’ll chicken out under fire. Don’t worry about it. I can assure you that you’ll all do your duty. War is a bloody business, a killing business. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them, spill their blood or they will spill yours. Shoot them in the guts. Rip open their belly. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt from your face and you realize that it’s not dirt, it’s the blood and gut of what was once your best friend, you’ll know what to do.

    I don’t want any messages saying ‘I’m holding my position.’ We’re not holding a goddamned thing. We’re advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding anything except the enemy’s balls. We’re going to hold him by his balls and we’re going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We’re going to go through the enemy like shit through a tinhorn.

    There will be some complaints that we’re pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a damn about such complaints. I believe that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing harder means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that. My men don’t surrender. I don’t want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight. That’s not just bullshit either. I want men like the lieutenant in Libya who, with a Luger against his chest, swept aside the gun with his hand, jerked his helmet off with the other and busted the hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he picked up the gun and he killed another German. All this time the man had a bullet through his lung. That’s a man for you!

    Don’t forget, you don’t know I’m here at all. No word of that fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell they did with me. I’m not supposed to be commanding this army. I’m not even supposed to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamned Germans. Some day, I want them to rise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl ‘Ach! It’s the goddamned Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again!’

    Then there’s one thing you men will be able to say when this war is over and you get back home. Thirty years from now when you’re sitting by your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks, ‘What did you do in the great World War Two?’ You won’t have to cough and say, ‘Well, your granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.’ No sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say ‘Son, your granddaddy rode with the great Third Army and a son-of-a-goddamned-bitch named George Patton!’

    All right, you sons of bitches. You know how I feel. I’ll be proud to lead you wonderful guys in battle anytime, anywhere. That’s all.”

  194. @annamaria

    thanks for the links, annamarina. Read only some of them, including “Not his finest hour,” which reviews a new bio of Winston by Richard Toye.

    Someone oughta do a Plutarch’s Lives of Churchill’s activities and rhetoric, paired with the same for Hitler.

    Meanwhile, Toye also wrote a book on Churchill’s speeches — also iconoclastic:

    “The roar of the lion : the untold story of Churchill’s World War II speeches
    Toye, Richard, 1973-

    Summary
    ”My aunt, listening to the Prime Minister’s speech, remarked of “our greatest orator”, “He’s no speaker, is he?”‘ – diary of teacher M.A. Pratt, 11 Nov. 1942.

    The popular story of Churchill’s war-time rhetoric is a simple one: the British people were energized and inspired by his speeches, which were almost universally admired and played an important role in the ultimate victory over Nazi Germany.

    Richard Toye now re-examines this accepted national story- and gives it a radical new spin. Using survey evidence and the diaries of ordinary people, he shows how reactions to Churchill’s speeches at the time were often very different from what we have always been led to expect.

    His first speeches as Prime Minister in the dark days of 1940 were by no means universally acclaimed – indeed, many people thought that he was drunk during his famous “finest hour” broadcast – and there is little evidence that they made a decisive difference to the British people’s will to fight on.

    In actual fact, as Toye shows, mass enthusiasm sat side-by-side with considerable criticism and dissent from ordinary people. Yes, there were speeches that stimulated, invigorated, and excited many. But there were also speeches which caused depression and disappointment in many others, and which sometimes led to workplace or family arguments.

    Yet this more complex reality has been consistently obscured from the historical record by the overwhelming power of a treasured national myth.

    The first systematic, archive based examination of Churchill’s World War II rhetoric as a whole, The Roar of the Lion considers his oratory not merely as a series of “great speeches”, but as calculated political interventions which had diplomatic repercussions far beyond the effect on the morale oflisteners in Britain.

    Considering his failures as well as his successes, the book moves beyond the purely celebratory tone of much of the existing literature. It offers new insight into how the speeches were written and delivered – and shows how Churchill’s words were received at home, amongst allies and neutrals, and within enemy and occupied countries.

    This is the essential book on Churchill’s war-time speeches. It presents us with a dramatically new take on the politics of the 1940s – one that will change the way we think about Churchill’s oratory forever. “

    eventually, little by little, as Thomas Fleming said should happen, objective history will overtake the emotion-laden versions and truthiness will triumph.

    • Replies: @Ivan
  195. Watcher says:

    Jewish criticism and fascination seem to point to an inescapable conclusion.
    They have millennia to craft and polish their trade. Against such formidable opposition, it would seem that anyone not equally committed is foolhardy to resist.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  196. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Watcher

    Did you mean to write “They [Jews] have had millennia to craft and polish their trade?”

    If so, it is based on an underlying assumption that is one of the most laughable in all the world.

    Often the claim is framed, “We Jews have survived for one or two or three millennia; the XYZ no longer exist.”

    Let’s look at that another way.
    Let’s say that the Jew who is making the statement is 55 years old.
    Let’s say that the non-Jew who is hearing the claim is also 55 years old.

    The 55 year old Jew has (presumably) a mother & father; a grandmother & grandfather (2 sets); great grandfathers & great grandmothers; great-great grandmothers & great-great grandfathers, etc. to the beginning of life on earth.

    So does the non-Jew!

    Unless, of course, the non-Jew does not trace his/her origins to human ancestors but rather emerged from a fragment that spun off the planet Shazzam when it collided with the Venus.

    sheesh.

    The only things stupider than Jews who float this rubbish are the non-Jews who allow themselves to be wowed and cowed by it.

    Remind yourselves, fellow non Jews, of Yuri Slezkine’s depiction of Jews as “Mercurians,” tricksters.

    Now buck up, get your shit together, put on your game face, and conduct yourselves like a fully competent, non-trickerish human being who will not tolerate being pushed around by the idiocy suggested by “Jews have been around longer than non Jews.”

  197. @Incitatus

    If a general becomes a big nuisance like Douglas MacArthur you simply dismiss him. Unless he is much smaller nuisance like Patton. Then he must be assassinated in a very complicated way. At least some people seem to believe that.

    • Replies: @colm
    , @Incitatus
  198. Darin says:

    Patton was not alone, Winston Churchill also wanted to “kick the Russian bear” and start WW3 immediately after WW2.
    Go search for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

    Not the best of Winnie’s drunken ideas – read the original documents to find what the professionals of British General Staff had to say:

    In the view of the Russian superiority on land, there can be no question of holding a continuous continental front.

    We do not, therefore, consider that there would be an operational advantage in retaining bridgeheads on the continent.

    It must, however, be anticipated that in the process of withdrawal from the continent considerable losses of equipment will occur, and we should, therefore, withdraw from the continent as much heavy equipment as possible as soon as war with Russia appears imminent.

    And the British general staff badly underestimated the actual quality and quantity of Soviet forces in Europe….

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Boomstick
  199. Darin says:

    Operation Unthinkable

    Operation Unthinkable, the actual British war plan against USSR from 1945. Declassified in 1998 and vanished from the internets afterwards…

  200. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Darin

    Does this imply that Churchill’s speech in Missouri was his attempt to goad USA into fighting the bear?

  201. anonguy says:

    200+ comments and no mention of Jean Gordon, Patton’s (disputed) mistress who committed suicide shortly after his death? Supposedly surrounded by pictures of him?

    What sort of conspiracy theorists are you guys?

  202. Ivan says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    I don’t think there were 40 million Iranians to begin with in the time of Churchill

    Famines were an unfortunate feature of the Malthusian landscape in India, well into the era of independence

  203. Incitatus says:
    @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.”

    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.

  204. Ivan says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Read “Churchill as Peacemaker” to round out your education. Such a book in fact exists.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  205. @Ivan

    my mistake — “40% – 50% of the population of Iran died in famine, between 8 and 10 million people.” – Gholi Majd https://www.amazon.com/Great-Famine-Genocide-Iran-1917-1919/dp/076186167X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471991415&sr=8-1&keywords=iran+famine

  206. @Incitatus

    Hitler could have “negotiated with” rather than have invaded Poland

    Gerd Shultze-Rhonhof, 1939: The War that had many fathers

    Patrick Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War

    https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betrayed-Herbert-Hoovers-Aftermath/dp/0817912347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438389971&sr=8-1&keywords=freedom+betrayed

    Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  207. @Israel Shamir

    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?”

    • Replies: @Anonym
  208. @Incitatus

    “MacArthur, after all, loudly wanted to expand war, publicly challenged Truman, and constituted an electoral threat into the bargain.”

    There is no question that MacArthur constituted a larger electoral threat to Truman, but it is dubious to say that he wanted to expand the war, if you are talking about WWII.

    As I have noted before, the assassination of Patton would have served the useful purpose of putting all the General staff on notice … if you are going to kill one, pick one who is relatively inconsequential and particularly annoying. MacArthur at the time was finishing off Japan, and by 1947 had made it publicly known he would stick to his knitting in Japan until a formal peace treaty had been concluded with Japan, which Truman put off until 1951. 1948 was perhaps MacArthur’s best chance to run for the Presidency, so why would he have stayed so focused on Japan if not for the chilling effect that might come from the assassination of someone like Patton?

    Regnum Nostrum notes in response to the question raised by Incitatus that people like MacArthur were simply dismissed. In my opinion, people like MacArthur would only be dismissable if they allowed themselves to so be or if they had passed their “sell by” date, the latter being the more likely case for MacArthur by the time Truman finally got around to dismissing him. If Mac had raised a fuss in 1947, you may very well have seen him die in strange circumstances or be very publicly discredited.

    BTW, that brings to mind people like Petraeus … Whatever you might say about his ability, there is no question that he had a bright political career in front of him right up to the time that his peccadilloes were made public and he was charged with enough of a national security breach crime to completely take him out of the running. But don’t cry for him, because he lived to rake in the big bucks in the private sector.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @Wizard of Oz
  209. @Incitatus

    No source is provided for your numbers.

    Wikipedia list of war dead combines casualties from “France and colonies.” It segregates neither for those French killed by US Allies in North Africa campaign — according to Rick Atkinson, that was where US fought first, and the first ‘enemy’ USA encountered were French.

    France was politically divided and in conflict with itself: Germans conquered France relatively quickly; German occupation was relatively nonviolent. But Vichy France fought partisans, fought De Gaulle’s troops, etc.

    Italy was even more divided against itself, with US covert operatives playing a major role in arming partisans; with Italian Communists (heavily Jewish) fighting ordinary Italians, fighting Italian forces loyal to Mussolini vs Italians loyal to Badoglio, who himself changed loyalties as the opportunity arose. Churchill admired Mussolini; in the end, FDR out-maneuvered Churchill and took control of Italy. My Mother lost her home due to Mussolini’s war, and my Father was permanently disabled after fighting in the N Africa campaign then onto the Allied invasion of Sicily. I have no love for Mussolini, but I do believe he thought he was leading Italy to become unified, modern, and prosperous, goals which eluded Italy then and now.

    In short, it’s no more possible to lay culpability for deaths in France, Belgium, Italy solely on Germany than it is to hold Germany culpable for the far-fetched number of 6 million Jews dead. As David Engel finds himself forced to concede at numerous points in his lecture series, the natives of a given place likely killed far more of their Jewish neighbors than Germans did. This was certainly the case in Poland, where the majority of Jews are claimed to have died, and also in Austria, Romania and Hungary, according to Engel’s own accounts.

    As argued in the above links, to “1939″ and to Buchanan’s and Hoover’s books, Hitler did not want war with any western Europeans; Jews did and so did Churchill.

    Fuck off w/ your snide remarks about seeking sympathy re “French women.” Jewish Hollywood pumps out several holocaust pity-parties each year in a bid for sympathy. If Jews did not want Jews killed they should not have provoked war. They did, now take the consequences.

    • Replies: @Ramaski
  210. Incitatus says:
    @Avery

    Avery, there’s no doubt the USSR largely won VE day. They definitely did much of the killing and paid the highest price in Europe. That said, remember the USA didn’t really have a dog in that fight until Adolf’s declaration of war 11 Dec 1941 (172 days after the launch of Barbarossa).

    At the time we were busy in the Pacific. Let’s talk about the Pacific. How many Soviet troops were at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Gilbert and Marshall Islands, Makin Island, Tarawa, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Truk, Mariana and Palau Islands, Saipan. Philippine Sea, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Angaur, Leyte, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc? How many were in the North Africa, Sicily, and Italy campaigns?

    Stalin launched his first offensive on Japan 9 Aug 1945, three days after Hiroshima and the same day as Nagasaki. Imagine if the USA waited until the USSR was on the outskirts of Berlin before assuming any offensive action.

    All of the dick-measuring aside, turn the clock back a little. How about Stalin’s partnership with Adolf in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 23 Aug 1939? His digestion of east Poland?

    And who do you call when your (former) partner/new enemy invades you? 1-800-UK&US?

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @MarkinLA
  211. @Ron Unz

    “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.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  212. @Ivan

    I thought to “round out my education” by tuning in to Hillsdale College podcasts on Churchill — Hillsdale’s president leads a Churchill cult.

    I did not “round out my education” but I did learn about one more place where no grandchild of mine will get my support to attend; the folks there are insane.

    I repeat: it would be a useful exercise to do a Plutarch’s Lives study of Churchill and Hitler.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  213. Incitatus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    I’ve noted ‘War that had many fathers’ from some of your earlier posts and am laying in a large supply of Rolaids before attempting to obtain/read it.

    I read ‘Unnecessary War’ soon after it’s debut in 2008 and noted a glaring omission: the 5 Nov 1937 Hoßbach Memorandum, which records Hitler’s clear intent to launch an aggressive war. It’s easy to make a case peace (short of capitulation) was an option if one ignores Adolf’s deadly designs.

    I make note of ’Freedom Betrayed” (my mother met Hoover as a child – no physical contact, thankfully).

    Meanwhile, I mourn your lack of response on French widows, allied-inflicted casualties, treaties, negotiation, and the like.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  214. MarkinLA says:
    @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.

  215. MarkinLA says:
    @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
  216. MarkinLA says:
    @AnotherLover

    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.

    • Replies: @AnotherLover
  217. colm says:

    Americans should have driven to Berlin in April 1945.

    Sure, a few thousand more US soldiers die. Big deal. In the waves of history, it merits hardly a blip.

    Eisenhower could have ended the war in 1944 when Patch was about to cross the Rhine around the Alsace area but he stopped it.

    Eisenhower’s kowtowing to Moscow has given USSR, and Russia, a legitimacy it never deserved and is still holding the country together.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  218. @SolontoCroesus

    “Why was Brandeis not concerned about getting Eastern European Jews out of Poland, Russia, Hungary, etc.?”

    Uh, because Hitler had not invaded those countries yet in 1933? That is a pretty stupid question.

  219. @SolontoCroesus

    Many thanks for that. It was one of the few long comments I’ve read in its entirety and it’s well worth studying.

  220. Avery says:
    @Incitatus

    { Let’s talk about the Pacific. }

    US, specifically US Navy, won the war against Imperial Japan.
    Nothing to talk about.

    US Navy performed brilliantly.
    The Island hopping campaign was genius.
    The Battle of Midway was one for the books.
    US Marines fought bravely and skillfully against fanatical Japanese Imperial troops.

    The martial skill of US Marines was evidenced in the the lopsided kill-ratio in US favour: in some case 10-to-1. Fanatical Japanese troops, driven insane by fanaticism, were mowed down by cool-headed Marines.

    Enough said.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  221. Incitatus says:
    @The Alarmist

    Apologies for being opaque. My reference to MacArthur was related only to his public differences with ‘policy’ in Korea 1951 (he was still a sizable electoral threat).

    I note your remarks on Patton and (undecided on the issue) look forward to reading Wilcox’s work. MacArthur at the time had everything he wanted (viceroy of Nippon) and made no waves.

    Petraeus, I agree, is better off (and happier?) raking in the dough. Amazing we have more flag officers than we did in WW2 (when the force numbered 12 million+). But then, defense and media corporations need retired generals/admirals, so I suppose there’s karma. One wonders why they get a pension at all, when there’s so much demand in the private sector.

  222. Hibernian says:
    @Avery

    That steamroller depended on a lot of American aid.

    • Replies: @Avery
  223. MarkinLA says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    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

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  224. Hibernian says:
    @DavidH

    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.

    • Replies: @DavidH
  225. George says:
    @Rurik

    “Eastern Europe was handed over” at Yalta. Patton could not change that on the battlefield.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  226. Hibernian says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Mr. Sayin’, you might just check out what Admiral Leahy said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  227. MarkinLA says:
    @Incitatus

    You don’t diminish the efforts made by US servicemen and the US itself by acknowledging that the major fighting against Hitler was done by the USSR and most of the destruction of the Wehrmacht was caused by the USSR.

    There is no doubt that the US almost single handidly defeated Japan. The efforts by the British, Australians, New Zealanders, and Chinese were insignificant compared to the destruction of the Japanese Navy, Japan’s industry and taking all those island strongholds.

    The problem is the brainwashing that Americans have that the US was the major factor in the European war and the USSR was a collection of incompetents that needed to be wholly supplied by the US or they would have lost.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  228. George says:
    @Israel Shamir

    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 – …

    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
  229. MarkinLA says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Somehow I clicked thing wrong and my post at 219 was really meant for you. I wasn’t talking to myself.

  230. MarkinLA says:
    @colm

    Sure, a few thousand more US soldiers die.

    More like 100,000 with probably twice that many maimed for life only to give it all back to the USSR since the postwar map was already decided prior to the battle for Berlin.

    • Replies: @colm
  231. Hibernian says:
    @Planet Albany

    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.

    • Replies: @Planet Albany
  232. Hibernian says:
    @Alfa158

    Such an armistice would have been far more honorable than frying women, children, and the elderly.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  233. @MarkinLA

    Stealing and copying isn’t quite what Antony was writing about. He details some of the Western support for the Bolshevik revolution, which was so extensive it’s clear the Bolsheviks couldn’t have succeeded by themselves. Western bankers built Soviet Russia. That’s the point. It truly is a monkey wrench in the historical narrative, but some of what Antony details makes for a pretty convincing case that the Russians didn’t bootstrap themselves up to the position of the 2nd Superpower. Bolshevism was built by the West to destroy Russia in the same way Cultural Marxism is being used today to destroy the West. We know of at least one group that held these long-term plans close to their hearts — and the giant statue of the — ahem — Confederate General Albert Pike in the middle of Washington, DC stands as a testament to that planning.

  234. Hibernian says:
    @DavidH

    I’ll show them the same respect that Black Lives Matter would show Confederate soldiers, because I’m anticommunist.

  235. colm says:
    @Avery

    Without Lend-Lease, the Soviet Army suddenly falls limp.

    I personally think the West should have sat still post Bagration, and let each other exhaust themselves.

    • Replies: @Avery
  236. KenH says:

    The Wilcox book referenced by Ron Unz is excellent and I recommend every one read it who has an interest in that subject. For those who think it’s irrelevant then move on to something else.

    A motive, or I should say, motives, existed to eliminate George S. Patton which Wilcox documents and discusses at length. Wilcox makes a very strong circumstantial case that Patton was murdered. Patton had outlived his usefulness and was threatening the post WWII order of things as well as being too friendly to the Germans and beginning to see things from their perspective and quite outspoken about our treatment of the Germans after the war.

    People say that the red army defeated Germany and that’s only half true. Stalin demanded an invasion of Western Europe knowing it would draw off German reserves from the Eastern front to the Western front and enable the Soviets to gain the strategic initiative through the end of the war. The D-Day invasion did precisely that. If not for U.S. involvement and carpet bombings of civilian and industrial centers coupled with lend lease aid the war would have likely ended in a stalemate between Russia and Germany and severely weakened communism in the West.

    Patton never had to face the bulk of the German armor, Luftwaffe or the crack SS divisions that remained in the East until the end of the war.

  237. colm says:
    @MarkinLA

    Some German generals like Heinrici, Busch and Wenck thought surrendering to the West was a better idea. And they were precisely the folks in charge of the final defense of Berlin. Some SS and other fanatics would have resisted, but it is likely that most populace of Berlin would have laid down their arms.

    The 100,000 argument is something given by Eisenhower’s camp to justify their handling of Berlin to Stalin’s minions and giving Uncle Joe a legitimacy. 5,000 tops. Plus the same number of wounded. But it would have saved a lot of postwar woes and would not have kept USSR uppity, so it would have been a worthwhile investment.

    Truman was the last US President who cared about soldiers’ lives. Unfortunately he was there at at time which could not have been more wrong.

    • Replies: @George
    , @MarkinLA
  238. colm says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    Ironically, MacArthur was right and Truman was wrong.

    If MacArthuer had his way we would not be worrying about China too much now.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  239. Darin says:

    Back to the topic, killing Patton:

    “Conspiracies” To Be Thankful For

    “General George Patton Was Assassinated”

    General George S. Patton was planning to submit his resignation from the Army when he was in an auto accident in December, 1945. His neck was broken, and although he seemed to be recovering, he died a few days later.

    In Target Patton, Robert Wilcox claims Patton was murdered on the orders of “Wild Bill” Donovan, head of the OSS. After a deliberate collision, an OSS marksman broke Patton’s neck with a low velocity bullet (a rubber slug by some accounts), then, when Patton still survived, the NKVD was allowed to finish the job by poisoning him. The motive was that Patton wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union, and was threatening to go public on strategic blunders of Eisenhower and others.

    This is all so deliciously Rube Goldberg it just has to be true. If the OSS had really decided to snuff Patton, it couldn’t just slip a couple of agents into Patton’s quarters at night, inject some air or potassium chloride into his veins, and sadly announce the General had died of a heart attack? They can’t have him “accidentally” hit a mine or an uncleared booby trap or unexploded artillery shell (there were still lots of them around). No, they stage an auto accident with other people in the car, then, when Patton isn’t killed – they couldn’t have arranged the impact to hit Patton, apparently – they have a sniper fire a rubber bullet. And Patton was on his way to go pheasant hunting! So the OSS had to act quickly while he was on the road, because there was just no way for him to be accidentally killed on a hunting trip. Now of course the window had better be open or broken, otherwise the slug might have been deflected. But Patton, like Rasputin, just won’t die, even with a broken neck. So instead of having an ambulance manned by OSS agents pick him up, neatly finishing the job en route, they allow him to be taken to the hospital, because of course a bouncy ride in an ambulance can’t possibly injure a man with a broken neck. When he continues to recover and is about to be flown home, they can’t put him on an OSS plane that conveniently “disappears” over the Atlantic. Nope, they allow the NKVD to poison him because, who knows? The OSS hasn’t graduated from Hogwarts yet and doesn’t do poison? Let’s see now, how can we make this as difficult as possible?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  240. Hibernian says:
    @Incitatus

    The Treaty of Paris, in 1783, seems to have worked out at least halfway OK.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  241. Corvinus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    “ah, but you miss a key fact that colors all NSDAP actions regarding German Jews from 1933 forward: It was the directive of the head of the most influential zionist organization at the time, Louis Brandeis, that “All German Jews are urged to leave Germany . . . all 587,000 of them.”


    Despite your meanderings, there is one clear path—the Nazis clearly wanted to remove any and all Jews, German and non-German, by peace or by force, from the motherland. I am aware of the collaboration between Nazis and Zionist movements within Germany to extricate Jews to Palestine given their own national interests. The zionists, however clearly understood potential dangerous intentions of the Nazis had there NOT in been a mutual relationship in this regard. If they could be in league with them for the larger goal—the settlement of Jews in Palestine—that would make political, economic, and social sense.

    The bigger issue, however, is that increasing numbers of German Jews in the wake of the Nuremberg Laws, as well as the events that transpired during Kristallnacht, decidedly changed their position against what amounted to forced re-location. According to Mark Weber (Zionism And The Third Reich), there was initial support by German Jews for zionism. They were eager to migrate there. However, “(E)ven as the Third Reich became more entrenched, many German Jews, probably a majority, continued to regard themselves, often with considerable pride, as Germans first. Few were enthusiastic about pulling up roots to begin a new life in far-away Palestine. Nevertheless, more and more German Jews turned to Zionism during this period. Until late 1938, the Zionist movement flourished in Germany under Hitler. The circulation of the Zionist Federation’s bi-weekly Jüdische Rundschau grew enormously.”

    However, this movement was slow afoot. German Jews were not packing up their bags and heading to Palestine in droves. There was growing hostility and resentment among this group of being labeled “murderous traitors”, given their long-standing history of support to their homeland. Kristallnacht further alienated German Jews. They felt abandoned, not protected, when scores of their fellow countrymen hunted them down like wolves.

    Regarding Hans Luther, you offered a source from 1933. It is not surprising he was part of the propaganda machine stating that the reasons to remove Jews were political in nature. The problem is that we can view the historical narrative as it unfolded—those “old-line” German Jew families were NOT safeguarded; their liberties were taken away; their property forcibly seized; their men sodomized; their women raped. Luther also praised the character of the Nazi revolution as “bloodless”, which by the late 1930’s, his statement was ultimately null and voided as German aggression against Jews intensified.

    Regarding the British, they had no intention of having scores of Jews emigrate to an area they controlled, nor desired to foment potential conflict between native Muslims and incoming Jews. They had every right to ensure that only the wealthiest Jews could enter the Holy Land, which naturally reduce the number of potential immigrants.

    “Rabbi Wise, and his son, the otherwise ne’er do well James Waterman Wise, and a whole boatload of Jewish provocateurs and shit-stirrers provided the provocations that would make life miserable for German Jews until they acquiesced to the zionist scheme.”



    Exactly why they preferred to remain in Germany. They were being bamboozled by their fellow Jews. Unfortunately, German Jews would still be persecuted.

    “(Given the presence of zionist agents in Germany in the pre-war years, including their most active period, 1938, it is not implausible to speculate that Mossad le Aliyah Bet acted as agents provocateurs in the events of so-called Kristallnacht.)”

    
Yes, speculation. And it’s not “so-called”. That event was officially sanctioned by the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party

    “Did Brandeis’s directive that “all Jews must leave Germany” portend the destruction of Germany?”

    The destruction of Germany, and the firebombing of its cities and subsequent deaths of its civilians, Jews and non-Jews, are on the blood stained hands of the Nazi Party, make no mistake.

    “As stated above, we know that the German government collaborated with zionist agents to move Jews to safety outside of Germany.”


    Corrected for accuracy —> The Nazi-led government collaborated with zionist agents for different reasons to remove Jews. For Hitler, it was an effort to “neuter” potential opposition. For Zionists, it was part of their larger goal to increase the Jewish population in Palestine. Both sides detested one another, but sometimes opposing groups make strange bedfellows.

    “In David Engel’s 8-hour lecture series, he recounts that “Nazis had a plan to re-settle Jews in the East.”



    What about those German Jews who preferred to remain in Germany? There was a plan for those individuals and family—forcible removal and/or death.

    “We know that many German Jews retained significant commercial interests in Germany, even during the hottest part of the war.”

    

Only those deemed useful to the Nazi government. At any point in time, those German Jews would be subject to the same horrors as their counterparts.

    “We know that Ernst Hanfstaengel, who nurtured a friendship with both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, encouraged Hitler to write Mein Kampf; provided financing to Hitler to publish the book; informed FDR of the talents of Hitler; financed and supported Hitler in the aftermath of the failed putsch; “defected” to USA and was safe-harbored by the FDR administration to provide information on NSDAP in the course of the hot war.”



    Speculation at best.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Incitatus
  242. Avery says:
    @colm

    {Without Lend-Lease, the Soviet Army suddenly falls limp.}

    The myth that lend-lease helped the Red Army significantly is just that – a myth. Would you like me to give you references proving exactly that?

    • Replies: @KenH
  243. Incitatus says:

    Well, what can I say? I responded (#218) to what I thought was your only retort to my post (#210).without scrolling up to your #213 “Fuck off w/your snide remarks” epistle. Live and learn.

    “No source is provided for your numbers”

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

    Note: wikipedia does indeed carry a combined figure for France and it’s colonies. It’s 390,000 civilians. My figure for domestic France is 350,000 ( refer to Kaiser “The Cost of Courage’).

    I won’t ask you to reveal your source for the 70,000 French killed by Allied bombing (Völkischer Beobachter?). I don’t care.

    There’s no need to recount France’s condition. I know it. My kin know it – first hand. From civilian JU-87 strafing victims 1940 to POWs imprisoned at Colditz 1940-45 (he was never quite the same). I won’t bother you with memories of WW1. It happened. It’s over. Time to move on (without trying to excuse the inexcusable).

    Italy? Did they sort of stumble into France (and Abyssinia, Greece, etc, etc). No doubt it was all a big mistake. I take your point on family damage done and have sympathy. You have lots of company (Axis and Allied).

    I have news for you: your side lost. What you’re selling now is dogshit. I hope you’re getting paid (but not a lot).

    ps. Bring up the Shoah and Jews is a gratuitous red-herring. Who cares? Buchanan is a former political operative for Richard Nixon and a failed presidential candidate (not a historian). I cherish Pat and enjoy his books, but he is not gospel.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  244. Incitatus says:
    @MarkinLA

    Point taken (thanks).

    I remember some years ago a survey of recent US collage grads: most agreed we fought France in the Revolution. In that context, our current election should come as no surprise.

  245. @James Kabala

    Hitler hadn’t invaded Russia in 1900 (AH was 11 yrs old) but NYTimes published Rabbi Stephen Wise speech to a “Mass Meeting of Zionists” that “there are 6 000 000 bleeding and suffering [Jews in Russia who are] arguments for zionism.”

    Hitler hadn’t invaded Russia on Oct 31, 1905 when NYTimes published that “From 1890 to 1902 he [the Procurator General of the Holy Synod of the Russian Empire] caused 6 000 000 Jewish families to be expelled from Russia and sent thousands of Poles to Siberia.”

    Hitler hadn’t invaded Russia on March 25, 1906 [ AH was 15 yrs old] when “Russia’s 6 000 000 Jews” were once again topic for NYTimes [uncertain whether the same 6 000 000 who had been expelled less than five months earlier, or a different 6 000 000.]
    Anyway, under the caption, “Dr. Paul Nathan’s View of Russian Massacre, the NYTimes reported that

    “at the Central Jewish Relief League of Germany, Dr. Paul Nathan, a well-known Berlin publicist, who has returned from an extensive trip through Russia as the special emissary of Jewish philanthropists in England, America and Germany to arrange for distribution of the relief fund of $1,500,000 raised after the massacres last Autumn . . .
    Dr. Nathan paints a horrifying picture of the plight and prospects of his coreligionists, and forecasts at any hour renewed massacres exceeding in extent and terror all that have gone before. He left St. Petersburg with the firm conviction that the Russian Government’s studied policy for the “solution” of the Jewish question is systematic and murderous extermination.

    (How clever of the NYTimes, and of organizations like the Jewish Relief Agency, to keep a template on hand and merely change the name of the entity-du-jour that will, any day now, “systematically exterminate Jews.”
    1906: Russia
    1933: Germany
    1995 – 2016: Iran
    Who’s next?
    But I digress.)

    It’s not a dumb question, James Kabala, because as the three reports above demonstrate, by 1933 Jews had been fear-mongering about the perilous state of “6 000 000 Russian Jews” for at least 33 years.
    All of a sudden, their worry shifts to Jews in Germany, where, as I explained in tedious detail, Jews were considered safe and protected by the NSDAP — more safe than they had been during Weimar, when street riots were the norm and Jewish organizations & businesses were not infrequently attacked by impoverished Germans.

  246. Avery says:
    @Hibernian

    Nope.

    A little American aid.
    Noting that made a material difference.
    Sorry: typical American hubris.

    Lookup the disastrous performance of GIs @Battle of the Bulge.
    Except for the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs ran against the German onslaught.
    Fact. Not hubris.

    The Red Army steamroller was all SU native.
    Ex:
    SU production of T-34 tanks during WW2: ~60,000.
    Sherman Tanks supplied to SU by US ~5,000.
    Less than 10%.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

  247. Incitatus says:
    @Avery

    Avery

    I’ve nothing but admiration for the Soviet role in the defeat of the Reich, other than condolences for the heavy price paid. Georgy Zhukov was amazing (borne out by Alistair Horne’s new ‘Hubris’).

    btw: I think the Imperial Byzantine punishment for GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the lot would be mercifully appropriate.

  248. KenH says:
    @Avery

    Yes, provide a link. It is in Russia’s interest to downplay the role that lend-lease played in their victory. If it was overrated and not much help then why didn’t Stalin refuse shipments?

    Without question Russian soldiers fought valiantly, doggedly and bravely with or without lend-lease.

    • Replies: @Avery
  249. Incitatus says:
    @Hibernian

    Sometimes treaties reflect the reality of committed force of arms (my humble opinion). The Brits could have further pursued war after 1781, but at what cost (given domestic cost and discontent)? Surely the French, not yet fatally encumbered with debt, would have been happy to oblige (anything to help level the ignominy of 1763).

    I won’t bother with the War of 1812.

  250. Incitatus says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    Apologies. My reference to MacArthur referred only to Korea 1951 (he was still a sizable electoral threat). In 1946 he was a satisfied customer – as viceroy, he never had it better.

  251. utu says:
    @MarkinLA

    We heard the stories of suicidal Japanese, bushido code… At some point I began to think they are just post factum stories to justify American wanton killing spree. I know stories of Japanese who actually managed to surrender to be later killed with grenades tossed into their holding area by some passing by GI. There was no order to do it but also no punishment for doing it. These attitudes came from the bottom. Demonization and dehumanization of Japs by US propaganda helped. It was the true fighting spirit that superiors did not want to squash and were also afraid of it (fragging anybody?). Americans were always great at killing. Never that great at taking POWs. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @MarkinLA
  252. Incitatus says:
    @colm

    At what cost?

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @colm
  253. @Incitatus

    I won’t ask you to reveal your source for the 70,000 French killed by Allied bombing (Völkischer Beobachter?). I don’t care.

    California Congressman Brad Sherman, on C Span Washington Journal
    @ ~ 16 min

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?407981-4/washington-journal-representative-brad-sherman-dca

  254. @MarkinLA

    As you would expect, communist industry was too primitive to manufacture modern electronics. Without lend lease their tanks and planes would have to operate without radios, comminicating with hand signals like they did at the beginning of the war.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  255. @Rurik

    (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?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Rurik
  256. @Corvinus

    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.

    This is the kookiest comment I have read on Unz.com to date.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  257. @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.

    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.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  258. roo_ster says:

    Hat’s Off
    I give the communist Russian empire all due respect in fighting against Germany. They paid for every acre several times over, largely due to inept military leadership (at the start), leadership by a evil sadist who allied with Germany for gain, and general Russian backward hard-headedness. Still, they paid the price and they got ‘er dunn. Hat’s off.

    Patton was not crazy in thinking that the forces of the USSR could be defeated by the other allies or just the USA and the UK at the end of WWII and with only conventional means. Oh, fighting inch by inch in the teeth of the Red Army, like Ike had the Allies do vs the Wehrmacht on the W front would be a grind and horrifying. Eventually the Soviets would be tossed out of central and non-Russian Europe. And, eventually, pushed back to the Urals. But that is the dumbass hard way guaranteed to bleed the Allies white. There are better options.

    Look at a Map
    All those rivers to cross between central Europe and Moscow. All the marshes that restrict movement, all the awful Russian roads. And we know what happened to Napoleon when he tried a little of the ultra-violence on Russia. So, east-west movement is a regular biatch and a horrorshow in the face of opposition.

    Now look at all that blue stuff on the map. It is a wet highway on which the USA and the UK were now the only real powers. Look harder. Hot dog, that blue stuff rolls all the way up to the Black Sea. Odessa, Sevastopol, and the mouths of several very navigable river systems that facilitate movement to the interior, that have been developed to move big heavy cargo. Similar situation in the Baltic.

    Last, the trip from the east coast of the USA to our troops in W Europe was likely faster and almost certainly cheaper than the trip from a factory in the Urals to the Red Army in Europe.

    Logistics
    All the armies save the USA and those supplied by the USA were dependent on horse-drawn log after the rail-head. Handy when Russia is fighting close to home with awful roads, not so much for a continent-wide romp. Rail heads, where the material from points east had to trans-ship to those horse-drawn wagons, were usually a chaotic mess. Also, the Red Army ate its way through eastern Europe, as armies have done since the dawn of organized warfare. That lightened the log load, but provided nothing for a return trip.

    Allied Support of Russia
    True, Russia produced lots of war materiel outside of Allied support. But that allied support even when considering only trucks and steel was decisive. Without it, Russia’s grain does not get harvested and they don’t have enough steel to bend into T-34s and YAKs. Remove that aid in the middle of war and Russia starves and tries to make tanks and planes without steel.

    Russian Workmanship
    And Russia produced some nifty designs. Too bad that the more sophisticated they were, the less likely they were to work. Little problems like half the tanks breaking down between bivouac and battlefield, like they did at all the big armor battles in the east. Russia had to, essentially, produce two tanks for every tank that showed up to face the Germans. The more sophisticated the system, the less would be effective when needed. So, all those Russian armor units in Central Europe? You can divide by two to see the effective force at crunch time.

    Why Walk?
    The Allies in 1945 were masters of the oceans blue. Why would they walk to Moscow like Napoleon when they could move troops and material much faster and much cheaper much closer to the objectives? (Objectives at first the lines of commo from Russian industry in the Urals to the Red Army in the west.) The Allies were also masters of amphibious operations. No reason to slug it out through central and eastern europe when they can insert via the Black and the Baltic. Use the rivers and canals to move the bulk of material into Russia’s heartland. Station some B-17s and B-29s with escorts in Rostov, Odessa, Iran, and the Baltics and target bridges, rail junctions, etc. Why? To cut off supply to the Red Army in central Europe, which is right where we want them. Leave enough troops in central Europe such that the Red Army can not disengage and pull an inverted Napoleon so as to skeedattle back to Russia as winter decends. And then watch as the Red Army starves in central Europe as Napoleon’s Shade smiles.

    Of course, pushing up to the Urals would be the practical limit and probably not pushed that far. Conquering Russia is not the objective. In any case, objectives:
    1. Free central and eastern Europe from Russian communism.
    2. Overthrow Russian communist empire. “Is there a Russian aristocrat in the house? We have the rump of an empire for you…”
    3. Destroy the Red Army in Europe.
    4. Create buffer states out of eastern Europe to protect against future Russian aggression.
    5. Discredit Russian communism and marxism in general.
    6. Head off future Russian communist shenanigans.

    I doubt Patton was thinking of slugging it out from Berlin to Moscow, since he was a master of maneuver/3rd gen warfare.

  259. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    New York Times March 25, 1906

    Dr. Paul Nathan, a well-known Berlin publicist, who has returned from an extensive trip through Russia as the special emissary of Jewish philanthropists in England, America and Germany to , , , paints a horrifying picture of the plight and prospects of his coreligionists, and forecasts at any hour renewed massacres exceeding in extent and terror all that have gone before. He left St. Petersburg with the firm conviction that the Russian Government’s studied policy for the “solution” of the Jewish question is systematic and murderous extermination.”

    Palm Beach Post, June 25 1940
    DOOM OF EUROPEAN JEWS IS SEEN IF HITLER WINS

    NEW YORK, June 24 – UP –
    Dr. Nahum Goldman, administrative committee chairman of the World Jewish Congress, said today that if the Nazis should achieve final victory, “6,000,000 Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction.”

  260. @The Alarmist

    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

    While it’s not hard to imagine a Communist country, cut off from subsidies from capitalist nations, resorting to using horses to supply their armored divisions (think North Korea), how effective could a breakthrough be if it was limited to the walking speed of a laden horse? Also, how well a does horse hide stand up to being strafed by 8 x .50 machine guns?

  261. @Incitatus

    While picking my way one fingered through Comments to see whether anyone had taken up my speculation (without reading Wilcox’s book of course) that Soviet and fellow travellers’ friends feat of the atom bomb had to be a key part of the Patton murder story I pause to congratulate you on your pseudonym. I assume it appeals to your, as it does to my, sense of humour to mix quirky ambiguity with the literal. (In the 5 seconds it took me to condemn myself to mine the fact of location mixed with suggestions of multiplex nonsense was enough).

    I trust you will be satisfied to be flattered if you find Incitatus turning up on other blogs….

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  262. @NoseytheDuke

    Goethe’s dictum is strictly for intellectuals and others who take their thinking selves very seriously…

    • Replies: @Ace
  263. @Ron Unz

    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….

  264. Ramaski says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    “As David Engel finds himself forced to concede at numerous points in his lecture series, the natives of a given place likely killed far more of their Jewish neighbors than Germans did. This was certainly the case in Poland, where the majority of Jews are claimed to have died ……”

    Wow. A Jew-hating liar referencing a Jewish liar as his source! The number of Jews killed by Poles can be measured in the dozens and were mostly a result of Jewish collaboration with the Soviet enemy that invaded from the east in 1939. So the “far more” part means you’re claiming that the number of Polish Jews killed by Germans was in the single digits? Or maybe you think it was zero?

    For Unz.com readers who want truthful historical information on this topic, go to this link:

    http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/SOV-OCC-39-41-UNEDITED.doc

  265. @Darin

    Since you put it that way, it must be true. I mean, look at the Rube Goldberg attempts to get Castro!

  266. @Avery

    “Except for the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs ran against the German onslaught.
    Fact. Not hubris.”

    I have to call BS here: While there were plenty of Canteen Commandos behind the front who ran, there were nevertheless a number of stories of outgunned US troops who made a stand and slowed the German advance to a grinding halt. Wish I could remember the title, but one good example was the unit who ran the fuel dump the Germans were planning on capturing to fuel their further advance using that fuel to build a flaming ditch across the road the Germans planned to use to advance further, thus denying them both the fuel and the road. There were plenty of heroic SOBs outside of Bastogne, and that is probably why the US didn’t have to fall back to Antwerp.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  267. @Hippopotamusdrome

    “There was no Luftwaffe left because we destroyed it during the Normandy campaign.”

    Wishful thinking. The Luftwaffe still existed and provided some degree of threat up to the end of the war, but mostly in ops to counter the bombing raids. Their biggest problem was being able to get off the ground, what with P-51s usually waiting overhead to bounce them, but they still managed to get off the ground.

    BTW, as testimony to the kill rate you noted before, the world’s top ace, Major Erich Hartmann, had 252 kills, and he was hardly alone in the Luftwaffe, with quite a few having kills in triple digits.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  268. @The Alarmist

    My bad! Hartmann had 352 kills. At least 78 of those were after D-Day, with the last one on 8 May 1945, so there must have been some Luftwaffe after Normandy. At least 7 of those were American, so you can’t attribute this purely to Soviet ineffectiveness.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  269. Avery says:
    @KenH

    {Yes, provide a link. }

    Here you go:

    [WWII lend-lease: was the US aid that helpful? (I)]

    http://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-helpful-enough-i/

    [WWII lend-lease: was the US aid that helpful? (II)]

    http://orientalreview.org/2015/05/13/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-that-helpful-ii/

  270. […] Ron Unz reports on the cold shoulder given to an extensively researched book that concludes that World War II hero General George Patton was murdered by the CIA because he became a powerful critic of Washington. http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/ […]

  271. @SolontoCroesus

    I repeat: it would be a useful exercise to do a Plutarch’s Lives study of Churchill and Hitler.

    I agree and nominate you for the job.

    I’ve long done some private, informal comparisons between the two although I would never count myself the equal of Plutarch. The differences are astounding, much the exact opposite of the usual propaganda, and would probably fill quite a few pages ala Plutarch.

    May I offer a couple of anecdotes as sort of a seed to get others to join in? You could then collect the ideas and write a “Plutarchian” summary.

    One revealing comparison that can be done using Google is the popular claim and smear that Hitler was a loser because he was a “failed” artist.” A quick search shows that the guy probably had quite a bit of artistic talent and if encouraged to develop it could have been a success at some related endeavor. By comparison, much is made of Churchill’s dabbling which is hopelessly amateurish by any measure.

    It would also be enlightening to read a well written comparison between Hitler’s “anti-Semitism” and Churchill’s. The idea has occurred to me that while Hitler worked with Zionists to established a Zionist homeland in Palestine, many Brits were against it which would of course cause them to demonize, frustrate and seek to destroy Hitler. I do not know what Churchill’s views were on that matter, but I cannot imagine him supporting an idea that would allow either Hitler or the Zionists a foothold in a very strategically important area especially when that would facilitate the access to Mid East and Persian oil unless he could control them for his benefit.

    Another quick point is that while Hitler apparently initiated an anti-smoking campaign in Germany, I think it would be a stretch to imagine the pompous, phony, cigar-chomping sot to have even thought of such a concept.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  272. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Avery

    Except for the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs ran against the German onslaught.

    Bastogne, while extremely important, became realistically secondary to the North Face of the Bulge where Dietrich’s momentum was extinguished and these were namely 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions and, in general, Hodges’ 1st Army who had to deal with the brunt of the initial onslaught. John Eisenhower, who at that time was at SHAEF with his father, noted that it was there, where the Battle of the Bulge was won, even when things still looked grim. This in no way diminishes heroism of troops in Bastogne not of the 3rd Army’s relief actions.

  273. DavidH says:
    @Hibernian

    To all the Soviet Union haters who think we owe nothing to an ally that took 27 million dead to rid the world of what Roosevelt called “an intolerable threat to the United States”:

    1. The United States and Britain could not have defeated Hitler without alliance with the Soviet Union.

    2. If Hitler had won he would not have cut you in on tbe deal.

    3. Hitler and the Nazis lost. There’s nothing you can do to about it. Get used to it.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  274. George says:
    @colm

    “Eisenhower’s camp to justify their handling of Berlin to Stalin’s minion”

    Berlin was put under Soviet control at Yalta. That’s the problem with this crazy discussion. Btw how did the British Empire end up with India and Kenya? Why did France get to keep Algeria? Why why why.

  275. @The Alarmist

    Did Hartmann fly the German jet fighter?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  276. @SolontoCroesus

    You seem to ignore the fact that Hitler’s and Nazi attitudes to Jews were widely known by the time Hitler became Chancellor and that it was only a matter of weeks before anti-Semitic laws and practices were being implemented. That Hitler or other Nazis may have seemed to favour Zionist emigration in the early 30s and that Jews in America began to organise sanctions and boycotts against Germany in 1933 are matters of no real help to Nazi or Hitler apologists who seek to minimise Hitler’s virulent longstanding anti-Semitism.

  277. @utu

    We heard the stories of suicidal Japanese, bushido code… At some point I began to think they are just post factum stories to justify American wanton killing spree. I know stories of Japanese who actually managed to surrender to be later killed with grenades tossed into their holding area by some passing by GI. There was no order to do it but also no punishment for doing it.

    Superb insight! I suspect that your suspicions are correct. In fact, you’ll find support for them in “The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh,” a very worthwhile first hand account of lot of the issues dealt with on this thread.

    A few examples:

    In it Lindbergh reports that some of our soldiers tortured Japanese prisoners and were as cruel and barbaric at times as the Japanese, and comments that he doubts that our record with respect to civilized behavior stood very much higher than that of the Japanese. (pg 875)

    He goes on to relate that American Army officers freely expressed the desire “to exterminate the Jap ruthlessly, even cruelly” and says that it is not the willingness to kill on the part of our soldiers that concerns him but the lack of respect for even the admirable characteristics of the enemy and how we twisted those qualities to make the enemy appear degraded while we regarded the same characteristics in ourselves admirable and heroic. (ppg 879-80)

    He remarked that in one action one Japanese prisoner was taken, but a subsequent report said that none were and quotes one infantry colonel as saying, “Our boys just don’t take prisoners.” (pg 881)

    He also wrote of a cave where Japanese troops tried to surrender and were told by our troops to “get the hell back in and fight it out.” [Probably against grenades and flamethrowers.] (pg 884)

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  278. @George

    What do you mean How did the British Empire end up with India and Kenya? Same as with Ghana, Nigeria, Tanganika, Cyprus, Singapore, Malaya, Rhodesia, Solomon Islands, Malta, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad, Guyana etc etc. They were part of the British Empire dating back a very long way in some cases. What’s your point?

    • Replies: @George
  279. @DavidH

    Are you seriously suggesting that Germany could have held out against the United States -assuming the US was keen to defeat Germany with or without atomic bombs? On what scenario? The Soviet Union actually supports Germany after Japan brings the US into the war before Hitler can attack the Soviet Union???

  280. @Wizard of Oz

    He was asked to fly the Me-262 early on, but he declined because he wanted to stay with his unit. After he crossed 300 kills, he added diamond clusters to his Knights Cross with oak leaf clusters and swords, pretty much as high an award as one could get at Company grade, and promptly grounded by Goering, who did not want to risk losing a national hero. During that time he was asked again, so he qualified and test flew the 262, but never flew it in combat. He finally went back to his old unit (JG 52) and finished the war in his Me109.

    The ugly postscript was that he surrendered his unit to the Americans, but was handed to the Soviets, who sent him to Siberia for more than ten years. Later as a Bundesluftwaffe officer he campaigned vigorously against the purchase of Lockheed F -104 Starfighters and was forced to take early retirement, so I guess you could say that the US screwed him twice.

  281. @The Term “Conspiracy Theory” Was Invented by the CIA In Order To Prevent Disbelief of Official Government Stories - PaulCraigRoberts.org

    Good to have Paul Craig Roberts exposing his total unreliability and lack of credit by fatuously, and completely inaccurately, writing of Patton’s murder by the CIA – which didn’t exist – when even the CIA’s predecessor organisation had been closed down three months before Patton’s death. PCR evidently can’t be trusted on anything.

  282. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @The Alarmist

    There were plenty of heroic SOBs outside of Bastogne

    There were, but also, as I stated in relevant post above–while Bastogne was mythologized with famous Anthony MacAuliffe’s “Nuts” (in reality Fu.k, I heard), the bloody endeavor of 2nd and 99th and Hodges’ military prowess received much less publicity than, otherwise, they totally deserved. And that is a really good indication of how warfare is viewed (was hollywoodized) in the US by general public.

  283. @Antiwar7

    @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?

    • Replies: @Antiwar7
  284. @Jacques Sheete

    Despite the savagery that people of European stock could and did display until two minutes ago it remains true that Japanese savagery – and refusal to surrender – in the 30s and 40s belonged to a markedly different culture. An important ingredient was the dishonour of surrendering. That seems to have led to treatment of allied POWs in a way which explains why my stockbroker uncle who was in Singapore when it fell and imprisoned in Changi refused to deal with Japanese when his firm started doing business with them in the 50s…. whereas, by contrast another uncle who had been a POW in Germany sent his son to stay with a German family and learn German in the 50s. (He had been a prisoner first in Italy and loathed and despised the Italian guards. But in Germany they were presumably WW1 veterans for the most part – I guess – and behaved much better).

    • Replies: @JamesG
    , @utu
    , @Ace
  285. @George

    Excellent questions, Sir!

    The major empires were consistently consistent in their hypocrisy, and thanks for pointing it out.

  286. @Jacques Sheete

    Like most Australians who have a fair knowledge of 20th century history and of British politics and the British Empire I have reasons for reservations about the character and policies of Churchill but your referring to him as pompous or phony suggests that you are a bit short of homework on him and on the [former] British ruling classes.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  287. @Wizard of Oz

    …but your referring to him as pompous or phony suggests that you are a bit short of homework on him and on the [former] British ruling classes.

    Now that’s funny! Sounds like a hefty dose of projection, as well.

    I can think of quite a few other adjectives to describe Churchill and none of them good.

    Have a nice day now Whizzzz, and bye bye!

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  288. Corvinus says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    “This is the kookiest comment I have read on Unz.com to date.”

    You can call it “kooky” all you want, but it’s highly accurate. High school history teachers, as well as their students, are acutely aware of the Alt-Right, the Coalition of the Fringes (Left And Right), human biodiversity, Black Lives Matters, etc. As a result, there is robust discussion in classes on these issues.

  289. JamesG says: • Website
    @Avery

    “At the Battle of the Bulge, depleted German forces, short of everything, routed US troops. Save for the heroic defense of Bastogne, US troops ran. Until the skies opened up, and USAF wiped the Germans out.”

    Yes, troops in American infantry regiments attacked by German armored corps put up little resistance. Sorta like the Russians at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.

    Although Bastogne and Patton get deserved credit the American 2nd Armored Division attacking from the North utterly destroyed the German 2nd Panzer Division in a one-on-one battle and they did it without significant air support.

  290. Waylon says:

    Having read “Target Patton” I was impressed at the level of research done by the author, Robert Willcox. I believe his assertions about the assassination of George Patton have the ring of truth.

    Patton certainly rankled the political powers of the day, even threatening to return to the USA and insert his strong opinions into the upcoming election campaign. That in and of itself may have been a reason to silence him. But he, as stated above, did have some blinders removed from his eyes after the war itself was “over” … thinking that the Soviet Union was a bigger enemy than Germany.

    And this also may have been accurate. It would be necessary to delve into the overthrow of the Russian Czar and the financial backing of Lenin and Trotsky by Wall Street financiers like Jacob Schiff, and the collusion of the Western Powers to assist in the return of both Lenin and Trotsky to Russia in 1917.

    Ergo Patton’s observations about the behavior of Jews in the immediate aftermath of WWII in Germany would also have disturbed the manufactured “history” of WWI and WWII and linking that all back to the onset of America’s gradual descent from the vision of the Founding Fathers to the fascist state it has become over time.

    I agree that O’Reilly’s book “Killing Patton” hints at the idea that Patton was assassinated but slouches back from that assertive title to become more of an amen service to the “official” and sanitized version of American history.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  291. Antiwar7 says:
    @OilcanFloyd

    I don’t know if US soldiers are less cynical about the government than before. Some of the current ones are cynical, but as to frequency, no idea. Maybe the current ones are more “on the team” since they volunteered? Psychologists show that people rationalize their position to great lengths after making a decision.

  292. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ed

    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).

  293. @Avery

    being I am not a communist groupie like you I can easily see THAT WITHOUT THE MILLIONS OF TONS OF STEEL and many other supplies the US sent them the Russians would have never won. Germans steel was cut off along with oil and most other implements to wage war. your communist heroes that “saved” Europe from the nazis had almost finished killing 66 million Russians. it was Hitler that saved Spain from the jewish led hordes that were killing nuns and priests exactly like they were doing in Russia. Russian armies were massed on their border to invade Europe when Barbarosa was launched smashing their armies. as long as the Germans had supplies they bulldozed and crushed the communists. Hitler was the ONLY anti communist there ever was

  294. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @husq

    from: Jewish Gen . org

    http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/NordhausenEng.html

    “Following the Nazi terminology, Nordhausen was a “Vernichtungslager”, an extermination camp for ill prisoners. The extermination methods used by the SS were not the same as the ones used in the great extermination camps: there was no gas chamber but, in Nordhausen, the prisoners died by starvation and total lack of medical care. . . .

    The camp of Nordhausen was a huge complex of installations and hangers made of concrete. There were absolutly no sanitary installations and the inmates had to stay in the hangars nights and days, without any food until they died. Even for a man in healthy condition, this could lead very fast to extreme weakness. For prisoners who were already exhausted and ill, these cruel conditions of life meant quick although miserable death.

    On April 3th, 1945, Nordhausen was bombed by the US Air Force. Since the camp was installed in concrete buildings and hangars, the US Air Force thought that it was a munitions depot of the German Army. This effective bombing killed a great many of helpless inmates because the SS forced them to stay in the hangars which were set ablaze by the bombs. . . .

    Nordhausen was liberated by the 104th US Infantry Division on April 12th, 1945. When the first American GI’s arrived in the camp, they discovered a gruesome scene. More than 3,000 corpses were scattered, helter-skelter on the grounds. In several hangars there were no survivors and in others they found only 2 or 3 living inmates lying amongst dozen of corpses. The situation was so calamitous that the medic unit of the 104th Infantry Division had to request urgent medical reinforcments and supplies. More that 400 German civilians living in the direct vicinity of the camp were forced by the GI’s to evacuate the corpses.

    The medic units of the 104th Division did the best they could to save as many prisoners as possible but even with the excellent care they received, numerous inmates died in the hours and days following the liberation of the camps.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  295. JamesG says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    After Lord Mountbatten was murdered by the IRA in 1979 it was revealed that his standing instructions were that no Japanese officials were to attend his funeral.

  296. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The stories of your uncles and repeating memes of Japanese savagery is what we have so far. My point is that there is much more to this story that American Pravda is not telling us. This article is about General Patton, so I do not want to diverge and create a new thread but I believe that there is an untold story of American savagery during the war on Pacific. The story would not be concerned with the treatment of prisoners and comparison with treatment of of POW’s by German, Italian, Japanese and Soviets but with the practice of not taking the POW’s.

    Your uncle survived imprisonment by Japanese. If he was Australian or British that was not exceptional feat: 6.2% British and Australians POW’s survived.

    • Replies: @colm
  297. […] Ron Unz reports on the cold shoulder given to an extensively researched book that concludes that World War II hero General George Patton was murdered by the CIA because he became a powerful critic of Washington. http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/ […]

  298. colm says:
    @Incitatus

    Negligible, considering the damage China has caused to America, the environment, endangered species and the entire world.

  299. colm says:
    @George

    Crazy for those who think the lives of 5,000 farmers, mechanics, coffee shop owners and truck drivers are precious. Not so for those who can see bigger picture.

  300. colm says:
    @Avery

    Who built all these radios and other communication equipments? Even now Russia can’t build its own cellular phone, except in very primitive quality.

    • Replies: @Avery
  301. colm says:
    @utu

    One of the hidden secret of the Korean War was virtually all of Korea’s officers were IJA officers. So all the US and UN soldiers who died in Korea died to keep these people who were killing whites for the Japanese Emperor.

    I think that it would have been better to let the Koreans die and give a parting shot of nukes to Korea.

    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
  302. @Hibernian

    Maybe so. But that doesn’t mean he was part of an elaborate (alleged and highly unlikely) conspiracy, including every US president since Nixon, to leave hundreds of American POWs to die in Vietnam. This Patton conspiracy theory is similarly implausible, but Donovan has been dead for a half-century and so can’t defend his own reputation.

  303. Rurik says:
    @George

    “Eastern Europe was handed over” at Yalta. Patton could not change that on the battlefield.

    I know that. What I said in the same comment you replied to was:

    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.

    Yalta was one of the greatest crimes against humanity that has ever occurred. Both due to the sheer numbers it enslaved and also for its inhuman treachery to those men who fought against the Bolsheviks, and to their horror were ‘keelhauled’.

    They had no way of knowing that the biggest friends the Bolsheviks had were the politicians running England and the US

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @George
  304. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Patton was murdered as was Larry McDonald because they knew too much. After the war, Patton knew that it was the western banking empire that financed the Bolsheviks. Here is a great read on Patton, Rudolf Hess: https://www.amazon.com/Spandau-Mystery-Peter-Moon/dp/0967816246/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472068412&sr=8-1&keywords=Spandau+Mystery

  305. @Jus' Sayin'...

    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…

  306. @Steve Naidamast

    It was a very small group of Truman’s inner circle that pushed for their use.

    care to share some names or links?

  307. @Steve Naidamast

    Good comment and it utterly amazes me that people still argue otherwise. I guess it takes a while for some to catch up.

  308. Rurik says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    “No man is more enslaved than he who falsely believes himself to be free.” Goethe.

    Present day Americans? British? Canadians? Australians? New Zealanders?

    good quote

    the five eyes?

    yes, they’re enslaved

    at least collectively, they’re spiritually deflowered, morally illiterate, drugged up, vapid consumer zombies with their faces glued to the social media device de jour

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  309. @anon

    a. The narrator in the CODOH video got key information wrong: the Jewish doctor said clearly that “American Air Force bombers” attacked Nordhausen, at 3:00 pm, then strafed survivors, then attacked the town next day at 9:30 am.

    b. the bit from Jewish gen. org, which tells a story different from the one that the Jewish doctor tells, suggests to this conspiracy theorist that
    1. Germans used the sick and forced laborers as human shields around their important weapons projects.
    2. Neither Americans nor Jews involved in the targeting and fighting were concerned about killing Jews; they knew very well the ability of Jewish leaders to ring the bells of their idiot co-religionists and get them to cry We Was Holocausted! — whether they were or not. In this case they were, but not exactly by Germans; they were killed by Americans, who may have known but didn’t care, or who killed them deliberately to create atrocity propaganda.

    c. Which Jew to believe? the Jewish doctor in the Shoah clip (see ~2 min., the bottom right corner), or the Jews who produced the Jewish gen propaganda? My vote’s on the Jewish doctor. Nordhausen was a rough camp, the Americans had bombed it several times, but laborers were not denied medical treatment nor allowed to starve to death — unless no one had food, as the Jewish DR said.

    d. Why/How did CODOH make such a mistake as to emphasize the it was the BRITISH who bombed the camp? Even Wikipedia records that Americans bombed Nordhausen — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Nordhausen_in_World_War_II
    The beginning of that wikipedia entry was in 2009, so CODOH should have known about it.

    e. The link @ #310 is intriguing — thanks M.Atlantean . Were the Germans working on some of their super duper high-tech projects at Nordhausen, so critical that the US didn’t care about killing Jews in order to destroy them — or killing Jews served additional purposes?

    f. Combining pieces of the jigsaw puzzle offers an insight into the usefulness of holohoax propaganda — Jews could be relied upon to kvech and wail “I Wuz Holocausted!” because they have a thousand years of history of behaving so histrionically; USA’s Jewish advisors knew this; USA & British decision makers used the traits to their advantage.

  310. @Jacques Sheete

    If you are into cod-Freudian pop-psych – as in tossing in “projection” – you might like to consider what it says about you that you utter your pejoratives about Churchill and can’t even think of “bold”, “imaginative” or “courageous”.

    But perhaps I have missed the private humour of a troll who is happy to troll without caring to show that he actually knows or can contribute more than JS.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  311. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    ” Removed from command by the Jewish plot against him, General Patton would have to return to the U.S. to work for the good of the country. It was to prevent this that a truck smashed into the side of his car in one of the strangest and most ignored events in America’s military history. Those who fight for America are always in danger, always thwarted by the plotting and the treachery of the sub-human’s whom Patton recognized and battled till the end of his life. History is one which enlightens and inspires us all, and this is why we must, after 40 years remind the American people of the cowards who murdered him.” Eustace Mullen 1985 40 year rememberance of General George Patton

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  312. @Guy Flaneur

    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

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  313. @Waylon

    You think that the possibility of a general returning to the USA and uttering strong opinions during an “upcoming” election campaign could have got him killed (and not by a lone nutter). Presumably by powerful people at the highest level of government? Can you flesh out this supposition with names, facts or reasoning to give it credibility?

    My doubt about your theory starts with “upcoming election”. What election? It was nearly three years till the next presidential election.

    • Replies: @Waylon
  314. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    lol

    the audicity and the audacity

    someone for whom no 24-hour period is complete without tossing in some pretentious but totally obscure pseudo-logic that suggests that he/she is standing on his head in the land down under itaque gets things cocked up; who has had lunch with half of the most influential people on the planet and visited every city on the other half of the planet (hmm — ever have an audience w/ Winston while he was in the bath? or birthday suit? There’s imaginative for you ).

    Wizard of Oz

    shouldn’t that be Bucket of Warm Whizzz?

  315. Waylon says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Wizard, I think if you read the book you’ll find the answer. If I recall I believe it was Patton who thought that Eisenhower had been placed wrongly as the leader of American forces in Europe. And since it appeared to Patton that Eisenhower was being positioned to run for President he thought that by speaking publicly and forcefully during the up coming election campaign he would allow the American public to see for themselves that there was something rotten afoot in American war and politics at the time.

  316. @Guy Flaneur

    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?

  317. @Anonymous

    Which of RU’s brave permitted Anonymous categories do you fit into? Don’t you feel some loss of distinctive personality when others post as Anonymous or equivalent?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  318. Regarding lend-lease combat vehicles being a small portion of the total, you have to consider its superior quality and effectiveness. Of the top aces, 90% of kills were scored in lend-lease aircraft.

    Soviet P-39 Aces

    Pilot — Victories — P-39 [lend-lease airacobra] Victories — % P-39

    Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin — 59 — 48 — 81%
    Nikolay Gulaev — 57 — 41 — 72%
    Grigori A. Rechkalov — 56 — 50 — 89%
    Dimitriy B. Glinka — 50 — 41 — 82%
    Aleksey Smirnov — 34 — 30 — 88%
    Ivan I. Babak — 33 — 32 — 97%
    Mikhail S. Komelkov — 32 — 32 — 100%
    A. Klubov — 31 — 27 — 87%
    Boris B. Glinka — 31 — 31 — 100%

    • Agree: Outwest
  319. @Jacques Sheete

    Do you really think it is a “fine comment” – or is that just the conventional American excess of polite pleasantries?**

    **I am reminded of a friend’s cynically jolly comment about American courtesy “Of course you’ld be polite to people if you thought they might be carrying a gun” but I think understanding might be better served by also remembering the formal courtesies of the upper classes in the 18th century which also served to prevent violence but were, as well, a way of keeping lower classes at arms length. (I’m not sure that servants in most of Asia are even now used to the idea of upper middle class westerners saying “please” and “thank you” and “would you” to them).

    **** ****

    I [obviously :-) ] don’t object to comments which toss in trivia that may be of interest to some but…. really: “assassinated”? Does that cut it with you?

  320. @Rurik

    Thanks Rurik. The Wiz commented negatively about me for posting that. I shudder at the thought of the day I am complimented by him for anything I post, it would be something like an endorsement from Quartermaster.

  321. @Waylon

    Can you (as one of the 1 per cent: that is those who have read the book if only once unlike Ron) elaborate on the timing?

    So Patton is going to stump the country in anticipation of the second rate overpromoted Eisenhower retiring from the army and, in two and a half years time be drafted as presidential candidate, presumably by the not notably Jewish Republicans? As I understand the Republicans who actually got Ike up were typically Augusta National types (they built Ike one of the rare villas/cabins – I’m not sure of the terminology – by the Bobby Jones designed course at Augusta where he was added to the approx 300 members)

  322. @Wizard of Oz

    I’m sorry I can merely read that comment instead of hearing you speak it, I just love the sound of a wizzling windbag in the morning.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  323. @Waylon

    Continued….
    why would Patton, even innocent of real grubby politics as one would expect of a fighting general who’s been years at war, imagine that Ike rather than someone like Dewey would be the candidate in 1948 if he didn’t campaign to expose his limitations?

  324. ww2-lend-lease-myth-reality
    source

    Item — % of item total contributed by lend-lease
    tanks — 12%
    APC — 100%
    aircraft — 13%
    AA — 21%
    AT — 9%
    ships — 22%
    trucks, jeeps — 64%
    aviation fuel — 40%
    railroad rails — 36%
    locomotives — 72%
    explosives — 37%
    aluminum — 55%
    copper — 45%
    machine tools — 24%
    tyres — 30%

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  325. @Hippopotamusdrome

    how much cash did USA send to Uncle Joe?

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr. wrote the checks, and he and his sidekick Harry Dexter White, who spied on USA for Moscow, were enamored of Stalin.

  326. @Anonymous

    I’m sorry that in my haste I failed to tell you that I am a little too young for a Winston bath tub conversation but do distinctly remember Douglas Macarthur saying to Randolph “a great pity you can’t hold your liquor like your father” (a sentiment shared I think by the said father) and somewhat later pulling Randolph’s son Winston from a snowdrift…

    I’ll tell you lots more stuff too if only you’ll let me know which Anonymous I’m addressing. Is it the AA Anonymous who periodically goes to the Sahara or the AAA on negative watch? Do you mind if I copy your habit of using “Anonymous” when you want to say something really silly, trivial, careless or offensive? Or maybe it’s your anonymous twin I’m thinking of…

  327. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If people really think only Patton had a chance of being killed by the U.S. Government, you folks don’t know the half of it. If the U.S. Government along with the C.I.A. is already known to have sanctioned killings of people in other countries or trained others in assassination programs (useful for plausible deniability) of which information on such events are now available to the public, what makes anyone think they can’t or haven’t perpetrated the same crimes on their own ‘soil’ numerous times or against American ‘Nationals’? Conspiracies and those that commit them have been around since the dawn of Civilization – practically a Human past-time, at least for those in position of Power have more capability to get away with it.

    Even the term “conspiracy theory” was coined by the C.I.A. themselves and look how much that has spread within the Lexicon, it is an immediate knee-jerk reaction statement to shutdown any frame of inquiry if one starts questioning what the Government says or suggests High Crimes.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  328. Avery says:
    @colm

    {Who built all these radios and other communication equipments? }
    Soviets did.

    {Even now Russia can’t build its own cellular phone, except in very primitive quality.}

    Former SU, now Russia were/are never good at consumer electronics.
    But people conflate their poor quality consumer goods with military hardware.

    Russians build hardware to fight wars.

    [How Russia's Edge in Electronic Warfare Could 'Ground' the U.S. Air Force ]

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-russias-edge-electronic-warfare-could-ground-the-us-air-15932

    [Modern Russian Electronic Warfare]

    http://www.drs.com/sitrep/q1-2016-the-invisible-fight/modern-russian-electronic-warfare/

    [Controlling the airwaves: Russia's electronic warfare systems]

    http://rbth.com/defence/2016/04/18/controlling-the-airwaves-russias-electronic-warfare-systems_585869

    {Probably the first time that Russian troops used electronic warfare was at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1904, Russian radio operators started jamming Japanese stations, which were directing artillery fire onto Port Arthur in Manchuria during the Russo-Japanese War.}


    {Even now Russia can’t build its own cellular phone, except in very primitive quality.}

    https://www.amazon.com/Smartphone-Yota-Yotaphone-Factory-Unlocked/dp/B00PZPYN0S

    https://www.engadget.com/products/yota/yotaphone/2/

    {I’ve spent a fair amount of time with the device, and have to say that it’s the most interesting smartphone I’ve ever used. Like its predecessor, the YotaPhone 2 is still very much a niche proposition with narrow mainstream appeal. That being said, Yota Devices has more or less achieved what it set out to do last year: Make a handset with an E Ink display that has several, legitimate use cases. Whether these will actually tempt you into picking one up is another matter, but the second screen is no longer an oddity; it’s an asset.}

    I don’t know: I am no cell phone expert, but this Russian design cell phone does not appear to be very primitive.

    What say you?

  329. […] Ron Unz reports on the cold shoulder given to an extensively researched book that concludes that World War II hero General George Patton was murdered by the CIA because he became a powerful critic of Washington. http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/ […]

  330. @NoseytheDuke

    Tell me something good about yourself: is your pseudonym in honour of one of history’s great (British) military men?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  331. @Anonymous

    The EU: CIA project surely ?

  332. @Anonymous

    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?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  333. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    My speculation on assassination relates it to civilian control of the military. A delicate balance from 1775 (e.g. Congress-Washington, Lincoln-McClellan). A loose-lipped general backed by a mature war industry is rich fodder for a coup or (more realistically) serious electoral challenge. McClellan in 1864. Patton in 1948? MacArthur in 1952. The victor of the presidency in 1952? General-of-the-Army Eisenhower. His farewell advice?

    “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -Eisenhower 17 Jan 1961

    Maybe Petraeus was lucky.

  334. George says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    USSR got control of Eastern Europe at negotiations with the British and French Empires, who did not see Poles and Indians being different. For its part the US didn’t care either. The USSR controlled areas lasted longer than the British and French, that fell apart almost immediately.

  335. George says:
    @Rurik

    Yalta had one goal in mind, keep the allies from squabbling. So the British Empire got to keep the Raj and Kenya, while the French Empire got Vietnan and North Africa. USSR got Eastern Europe. The US got the post war economic system.

    Absolutely nobody cared or even thought threw what would happen.

    Why do people think having Patton in charge would have changed British rule in India? I dont see Patton much interested in helping Bulgaria.

  336. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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?

    Well, with nearly 50K of comments, many of them considerably off-topic, I’ll admit I haven’t read them all after the first hundred or so. But since this one is now at the bottom, I probably should note that I’d already responded to this same point a couple of days ago:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/was-general-patton-assassinated/#comment-1537928

    Obviously, Patton’s killing was never an “official OSS action”, with paperwork in the oSS files and that sort of thing. Instead, the head of the OSS recruited a top OSS assassin to get rid of Patton, giving him total leeway on how and when to do so, and the temporary dissolution of the oSS had nothing to do with the matter.

    As I emphasized, Donovan was desperately attempting to be named head of the oSS successor organization, and doing important favors for the people in a position to help determine this was very plausible.

    Since the book only costs about $3, maybe it would make sense to just order it and decide for yourself.

  337. @Avery

    What they can do now isn’t so relevant to the 40s. Russia went a little non-Communist in the 90s and we relaxed our vigilance against them so they have more avenues for technology transfer from the west now.

    • Replies: @Avery
  338. Avery says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    {…. we relaxed our vigilance against them so they have more avenues for technology transfer from the west now.}

    SU was the first to send a satellite in orbit.
    SU was first to send a man into space.
    …….

    SU pioneered the robotic exploration of space with their Lunokhod program (early 1970s)
    {Not until the 1997 Mars Pathfinder was another remote-controlled vehicle put on an extraterrestrial body.} (from Wiki)

    Yes: I am sure if there was no ‘technology transfer from the West’, Russia would be back in the stone age.

    One more for the road:

    [U.S. military, national security agencies vexed by dependence on Russian rocket engines]

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-military-national-security-agencies-vexed-by-dependence-on-russian-rocket-engines/2014/05/30/19822e40-e6c0-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

    Explain that by ‘technology transfer from the West’.

  339. @Ron Unz

    Mr Unz, your article needs no defending and may I respectfully suggest that attempting to reason with some is about as effective as whizzing into the wind?

  340. @John Jeremiah Smith

    What’s wrong with the software that impedes discussion?

    I ask that seriously rather than as implying that I think such a statement might be an excuse for uncouth or otherwise inadequate responses in a discussion.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  341. @Wizard of Oz

    No, leave Arthur out of it. Schoolyard taunt after spotted being dropped off in Dad’s Bentley.

  342. @Ron Unz

    OK. I give in. I’ll have to read the book though I am more inclined to accept your judgment on matters which can’t be known with certainty than that of an author of whom I know almost nothing.

    But please note that as far as I can tell your words “temporary dissolution of the OSS” are materially inaccurate because the CIA wasn’t created for another two years.

    If we are left with Donovan’s hired assassin – and Wilcox says there would be no book without him – I concede that my preference for the motive being to protect the USSR against feared nuclear war has to be abandoned, and it is certainly inconsistent with any idea that there were murder atempts as early as April.

    Questions for me to follow up include
    1. How was the assassin to be rewarded after the OSS was dissolved? 2. What do we know about Donovan’s character, ideas and ambitions that would shed light on the possibility that he would have instituted such a coup? Etc.

    I have just read of the 2008 complete disclosure of OSS records including all its people and even the people who applied but weren’t accepted. The potential for following Wilcox down every rabbit hole seems endless….

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  343. Hunsdon says:
    @Avery

    Avery:

    Some people just won’t let go of the gag line that Russia is “a gas station with a flag.”

  344. @Wizard of Oz

    What’s wrong with the software that impedes discussion?

    I ask that seriously rather than as implying that I think such a statement might be an excuse for uncouth or otherwise inadequate responses in a discussion.

    Just FYI, you will find that, in general — and, mind you, there are exceptions — I am quite polite with people who a) ask a legitimate question, b) pose a reasonable demurral, and c) do so without implying or stating that I am brain-damaged, stupid, ignorant, or under the influence of drugs.

    The comment software does not provide reply-chain linking. Thus, following and responding, or interjecting one’s own opinion at some point in the sequence, is impossible. It also makes it difficult to navigate sequentially through a discussion, if “discussion” is the correct term.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  345. @Ron Unz

    While I have not read the book, according to its characterization by you and others, it does not make a definite claim that Patton was assassinated. Yet you blithely assert here that Donovan “recruited a top OSS assassin to get rid of Patton, giving him total leeway on how and when to do so.” I suppose this is no more of a reckless assertion than the allegations that Eisenhower and George Marshall were communist agents, which were made by some in the late 1940s and 50s. And obviously there were plenty of real communist spies exposed in that period, such as Alger Hiss. But the very prominence and long military record of men like Ike, Marshall and Donovan would give a more prudent analyst pause before making such allegations of terrible crimes without much stronger evidence that I have seen on this thread. Frankly, from the facts known to me, whatever someone alleged decades later, the possibility that Patton was assassinated seems slim to none, and the likelihood that you are doing an egregious injustice to the memory of a brave and principled American patriot, Donovan, seems very high.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  346. Ron Unz says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    The comment software does not provide reply-chain linking. Thus, following and responding, or interjecting one’s own opinion at some point in the sequence, is impossible. It also makes it difficult to navigate sequentially through a discussion, if “discussion” is the correct term.

    Sure it does, at least so long as you have Javascript enabled on your browser. Just click the “This Thread” button, and only the particular thread in question will remain visible, allowing a discussion to be easily examined.

  347. Ron Unz says:
    @Planet Albany

    While I have not read the book, according to its characterization by you and others, it does not make a definite claim that Patton was assassinated. Yet you blithely assert here that Donovan “recruited a top OSS assassin to get rid of Patton, giving him total leeway on how and when to do so.”

    Well, it’s certainly obvious that you haven’t bothered reading the book. As I stated in the article, the OSS assassin, with a long and very distinguished US military record, eventually confessed his deed, backed by lie-detector evidence and also a voluminous personal diary. His story was that Donovan paid him $10,000 to kill Patton. This is eye-witness testimony, quite a bit stronger than mere heresay.

    Furthermore, the book provides considerable evidence that Donovan was very much in the Soviet orbit during the period in question, probably because of his desire to win the political favor of the Communist spies were then near the top of the U.S. government.

    If you want to remain blissfully ignorant, you’re free to do so.

  348. @SolontoCroesus

    1. The Jewish leadership had an estimate of the number of Jews in Eastern Europe that was roughly accurate.

    2. Hitler did, in fact, kill most of them.

    3. Therefore the numbers match!

    4. Not much mystery here.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  349. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    But please note that as far as I can tell your words “temporary dissolution of the OSS” are materially inaccurate because the CIA wasn’t created for another two years…How was the assassin to be rewarded after the OSS was dissolved?

    Well, Wikipedia is useful as a source for “official history”, and if you just go to the Wikipedia page on the CIA you’ll see that although the OSS was dissolved in September 1945, its immediate successor the NIA was established a couple of months later, eventually becoming the CIA in 1947. Presumably, Donovan very much hoped to become head of the NIA:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Immediate_predecessors

    According to the OSS assassin, Donovan paid him $10,000 (roughly $100K today) in advance for Patton’s assassination, during Summer 1945, leaving it up to him to make the necessary arrangements and get the job done.

  350. @Ron Unz

    So the alleged assassin had “a long and very distinguished US military record.” If that record is relevant, I wonder how it compares to that of US Army Major-General Donovan, who in the previous war, according to his Medal of Honor citation, displayed “extraordinary heroism on 14 and 15 October 1918, while serving as Commanding Officer, 165th Infantry, 42d Division, American Expeditionary Forces, in action at Landres-et-St. Georges, France. Lieutenant Colonel Donovan personally led the assaulting wave in an attack upon a very strongly organized position, and when our troops were suffering heavy casualties he encouraged all near him by his example, moving among his men in exposed positions, reorganizing decimated platoons, and accompanying them forward in attacks. When he was wounded in the leg by machine-gun bullets, he refused to be evacuated and continued with his unit until it withdrew to a less exposed position.”

    As to Donovan being “very much in the Soviet orbit during the period in question, probably because of his desire to win the political favor of the Communist spies were then near the top of the U.S. government. ” His job was to cooperate with British and Soviet intelligence to fight the Nazis, which he did effectively. Like Truman, Ike and the rest of the US establishment, his politics turned anti-Soviet as Stalin’s hostility became obvious after the war.

    Can you really not see that a man with that record deserves more consideration by you of the (very strong) possibility that you are doing him a gross historical injustice, based on the allegations of a person and a book that no one ever heard of? Are you really so arrogant as to dismiss as “blissfully ignorant” those who demand higher levels of evidence for the wild conspiracy theories so uncritically accepted by you and some commenters on this thread?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  351. Ron Unz says:

    Given some of the very silly Patton assassination criticisms I’ve now noticed upthread, I should probably add a few extra points that I’ll eventually raise in more polished form in future columns.

    Until the last few years, my knowledge of 20th century American history was minimal, basically coming from high school textbooks plus what I picked up reading my newspapers. I never had had much interest in the subject, which I considered rather bland and boring.

    However, during the 2000s I built my UNZ.org content-archiving system, containing millions of pages of elite publications, many of them available nowhere else: http://www.UNZ.org. During the digitization process, I couldn’t help but notice that American history seemed remarkably different than I’d always assumed. Frankly, traffic to that website has been quite disappointing, so it wouldn’t totally surprise me if I’m one of the very, very few individuals anywhere who actually has a reasonable sense of the true history of 20th century America. I’m hoping to write up some of my observations when I have some time down the road.

    Then in the last few years, I began reading a number of books here and there, and as a newcomer to American history perhaps noticed certain things that longtime experts hadn’t. It’s now well established that between the early 1930s and the late 1940s, a network of Communist spies exercised enormous power near the very top of the American government. Okay.

    However, I’ve also noticed that during the 4-5 years between roughly the end of WWII and the late 1940s, a remarkable number of top American figures suddenly died under strange circumstances, succumbing to a mixture of car accidents (e.g. Patton), suicides, sudden heart attacks and that sort of thing. Oddly enough, this was exactly the period when the Communist spies substantially controlling the US government began losing their grip on power.

    When Stalin wanted to get rid of a high military or political official, he generally just ordered the fellow arrested and shot as a traitor. However, in a constitutional republic such as the U.S., other means needed to be deployed…

  352. Ron Unz says:
    @Planet Albany

    I wonder how it compares to that of US Army Major-General Donovan, who in the previous war, according to his Medal of Honor citation, displayed “extraordinary heroism on 14 and 15 October 1918

    Well, I think you’re what’s commonly called a “patriotard”…

    I’ll actually be discussing Donovan a bit more in my next column.

    Also, since you’re apparently new here, you might want to read my 2015 article about the background of America’s current #1 patriotic war-hero, former Vietnam War POW Sen. John McCain:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-tokyo-rose-ran-for-president/

    http://www.unz.com/article/was-rambo-right/

  353. @James Kabala

    slaaam dunk.

    wow.

    Such compelling logic, extensively supported with irrefutable evidence.

    Why, not even Flee Bailey could put a glove on your argument.

    (signed)
    In Awe

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  354. It was my good fortune to travel in Iran with the younger brother of Richard Frye, the noted scholar of Persian history and culture. The younger Frye was 93 at the time; he told of some of his older brother’s activities with OSS, and of how he, like so many other bright Harvard grads of his day, were urged to slide out of OSS to its successor, the CIA. Richard declined, preferring the life of the scholar.

    The Iranian people provided for Dr. Frye a mausoleum on the banks of the river that dominates Isfehan. While we were in Iran we visited the beautiful site. Frye died in 2014 and is, I assume, interred in Isfehan. RIP.

    imho he made the right choice so many years ago, to study and contribute to an understanding of the culture of Iran and the contributions it made to world civilization, rather than engage in the darker arts initiated by Donovan and boosted by the Dulles brothers (pace Phil Giraldi).

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  355. @Ron Unz

    Sure it does, at least so long as you have Javascript enabled on your browser. Just click the “This Thread” button, and only the particular thread in question will remain visible, allowing a discussion to be easily examined.

    Well, damn. I was wrong. Wait … wait … I’m never wrong. I was, um, unobservant. Yeah, that’s the ticket, unobservant.

    Sorry ’bout that! I am duly chastised. :-) Nice incremental touch on the programming side.

  356. @Ron Unz

    Ever notice how many people who were friends of Bernard Baruch died or were incapacitated at critical moments?

    w/ respect, Ron, you may not actually be the “only one” who has accumulated and organized a database, then noticed some interesting patterns, then plan or hope to organize an publish same. Being Jewish is insurance against having your research buried if not destroyed, along with your career.

    In a discussion on Free Speech at the National Constitution Center, Stanley Fish told the audience that “free speech does not extend to the academy; there, persons with tenure, and deans, decide what will be published and what will be researched. Anyone who chooses to deny the holocaust will not advance in his career, he will not have classes to teach. https://www.c-span.org/video/?318476-1/free-speech-us

    Just the other day I noticed this amazing juxtaposition on a C Span web page:

    2 BILLS
    110th Congress
    H.RES. 1127
    Resolution condemning the endemic restrictions on freedom of the press and media and public expression in the Middle East and the concurrent and widespread presence of anti-Semitic incitement to violence and Holocaust denial in the Arab media and press.
    109th Congress

    H.RES. 1091
    Condemning in the strongest terms Iran’s commitment to hold an international Holocaust denial conference on December 11-12, 2006.

    Am I the only one who sees the contradictions in Stanley Fish’s position, and between the two Congressional Resolutions?

    If Free Speech does not apply to (so-called) holocaust denial, then the concept and the right is meaningless.

    If a non-Jew is forced to speak in guarded tones, or to refrain from speaking at all, or from publishing at all, material carefully gathered over the years that seems to shed light on the activities of the US government, but a Jewish person may and can do so freely and, I might add, be remunerated for doing so, then something is terribly wrong with the system.

    Reflecting on Madison’s dictum that

    “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

    constraints such as those that Fish is, apparently, able to impose, and that the US Congress endorses with its absurd Resolutions, distort the Constitutional system such that “tragedy or farce” tend to overwhelm the Enlightened self-government that Madison had in mind.

    (apple polishing time: obviously your webzine is the antidote to “tragedy or farce,” for which we, at least I, am thankful. But consider the relative reach and impact of a Stanley Fish, vs the people who pay serious attention to views and information on Unz.com. Fish and a whole host of persons in his position are reaching and forming the next generation of America’s leaders, and the information they are getting — paying for dearly — is seriously censored and distorted.)

  357. Waylon says:

    As a first time visitor to this sight I’m impressed with it and this particular story, as I’ve read about it from a few different angles.

    Nothing wrong with honest disagreement but when it comes as a critique from adherents of the manufactured and sanitized versions of events that they always slag with the stated or implied label “conspiracy theorist” version it’s easy to recognize that there’s either a media trained seal or paid shill eating up huge chunks of band width to disrupt and cast aspersions and doubt into the thinking of those who have questioned the “official and sanitized” version of historic events, which are at variance with reality.

    Ron Unz, I salute you in your endeavors the expose the creepy little men behind the curtain and uphold the truth for those to see … or for those interested in seeing.

    Paraphrasing William Colby, former director of the CIA: “We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”.

  358. Alden says:
    @utu

    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.

  359. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Absolutely Patton was assassinated. Beyond that, look how the war in Western Europe was prosecuted.

    The debacle of the Falaise Gap. The restraining of Patton from exploiting fully his army’s breakout into the flatlands of France. The persistent use of the West’s armies in fighting not in the more maneuverable countryside, but instead in mostly urban areas and through the urban and difficult “Low Country.”

    The militarily insane and unworkable “Market Garden.” An operation that had planners deliberately ignoring intelligence of the enemy’s position–planned to fail. An operation that had certain commanders willfully aide the enemy, treason, by deliberately hindering success.

    Then there is the willful ignorance of the enemy’s build up for “Wacht am Rhein” that produced the tragic Battle of the Bulge. Little known is that Patton was able to turn his army so quickly to the north, toward the “Bulge,” because he had ALREADY begun the turn. He and his staff had warned SHAEF of their intelligence findings that the enemy was building for an attack through the Ardennes. So sure were they, they had already preplanned the move to the north that they later executed.

    What the Khazarians’ quisling in England were doing was timing the West’s push into Germany so as to enable the Khazarians’ brethren in the East to take control of much of Eastern Europe.

    I think that post “Market Garden,” and immediately after hostilities, Patton began to see and understand the Khazarian hand in the proceedings. He is claimed to have said that he had a black book of evidence that he was gong to use to blow the lid off the entire atrocity. He was then murdered–the first casualty in the Khazarians’ “Coldwar” theater.

    That’s enough for now.

    An American, citizen, not US subject.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  360. Sean says:

    My favorite film is The Mechanic (1972) in which the first 16 minutes consist of a master hitman devising and putting into practice a fiendishly complicated method to murder a man from across the street and make it look like an accident.

    In one of his books spy thriller novelist and historian Len Deighton mentions that up until D day the Allies had lost more troops in wartime traffic accidents than in combat. While acting as hos driver,Roy Farran killed his commanding officer, who was renowned hero General (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Campbell_(British_Army_officer). General Walton Walker was killed in a car crash in the early stage of the Korean war. Military drivers, even ones chauffeuring generals, were often rather reckless. It is quite possible Patton’s gung ho reputation encouraged less caution by his drivers. But then again the books thesis does not require the accident to have been faked, as it proposes a poisoning while he was recovering.

    I have to wonder though, because if Patton had to be killed they would not have waited for an accident as cover, so it would have to be a remarkably coincidental accident facilitating a murder plot already put in motion. Or, the accident was a very ambitious attempted murder which fortuitiously made Patton’s killing able to be done in a phased and less drastic way to look like a failure to recover from injuries.

    There is no question the US government was riddled with Soviet agents (possibly including Averell Harriman), and the Soviets were certainly capable of removing someone, although given the risks it would have to be balanced with the actual danger Patton would pose (MacArthur was not killed I note, though he was more dangerous to Stalin). A murder does not seem a very tidy way of dealing with any problem that Patton represented though. As The Mechanic‘s Arthur Bishop says “there are alternatives to everything.”

    • Replies: @colm
  361. Erik L says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    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.”‘

    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
  362. @Erik L

    According to Douglas Bazata he was poisoned by NKVD agents. That happened when Patton started to recover. Most likely to make it look less suspicious that he was murdered. Why kill him when he was in bad shape, right? One has to wonder why the OSS, since they were supposed to cooperate so closely with NKVD, did not let them to do the whole job. This strange division of “labor” is just one of the weird aspects of the whole fishy story.

  363. @Ron Unz

    However, during the 2000s I built my UNZ.org content-archiving system, containing millions of pages of elite publications, many of them available nowhere else: http://www.UNZ.org. During the digitization process, I couldn’t help but notice that American history seemed remarkably different than I’d always assumed. Frankly, traffic to that website has been quite disappointing,

    And I for one shall be eternally grateful to you for that. It is simply astounding, and I encourage everyone to use the site.

    I am very sorry to hear that few use it. I’ve literally spent days reading articles there. For people truly interested in the history of 20th century USA, it’s hard to beat this resource. I’ve especially found tons of great info in the magazine, “The American Mercury.”

  364. Incitatus says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’ve always had doubts about Forrestal. Reading ‘Driven Patriot’ years ago didn’t help. More recently ‘The Brothers’ and ‘Devil’s Chessboard’ add to skepticism. As far as the MSM goes, Iraq 2003 demonstrates it’s fully laden with corruption. So what?

    Regarding Patton the Soviets might be right. But how many GIs would have been keen to attack their former popular ally to defend former enemy East Germany, or Poland and the like? How many wanted, if successful, to spend years in a garrison on said territory?

    What’s your fall back?

    What about industry types apt to be contributors to the DNC and GOP? Maybe a stable ‘cold’ war would produce the desired profits without an army mutiny? Maybe they even had investments in Lend-Lease.

  365. @Corvinus

    Thanks for that which seems to me pretty level headed. I think we may have exchanged umpleasantries** before on UR so it is good to find something to keep me reading. The information you provide here suggests that you are Jewish and it would be usefully informative to know something of your relevant background just as I find that Sam Shama’s contributions don’t have to be treated like glimpses of hieroglyphics on shards.
    ** damn the www! I was hoping to claim a coinage only to find a page full of it in 5 seconds flat. Still I shall persist in crude linguistic improvisations and perversity because my instinct tells me that it is emollient if not friendly and amusing to do so, n’est-ce pas?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  366. @SolontoCroesus

    Quite a lot of interesting stuff to follow up. I think an old school friend whom I see only by chance with decades between encounters might supply me with just such stuff. Honest I accept. But in your case anyway lacking in discrimination (which I admit to being a minor attack on your intellectual refinement) as evidenced by your hopelessly inept response to James Kabala. What on earth would the Czarist regime’s treatment of Jews in the then Russian empire 25 years earlier have to do with what Brandeis thought good for German Jews in 1933?

  367. @James Kabala

    Spot on. As I have just noted to SolontoCroesus

  368. MarkinLA says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Radios were not high tech by then. They had them. Radar was probably not something they excelled at but it didn’t matter on a war theater so large. In addition, this war was up close and personal, technology didn’t matter nearly as much as the size of your army and how much losses you could take. Hitler’s big mistake was not digging in and holding the Soviets off until their technological advantage could be utilized like the ME-262. Instead he blundered and attacked Kursk when the Soviets knew they were coming and built significant defenses. In their defeat their Panzer divisions were severely weakened.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  369. @SolontoCroesus

    Well if his assertions of fact are right the argument looks pretty good unless you want to add to Tay-Sachs, Nieman-Pick etc some special Ashkenazi susceptibility to typhus when deprived of a kosher diet or …..

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  370. MarkinLA says:
    @colm

    FDR and Truman both cared about being reelected and nothing spells defeat more than somebody coming out and telling some mother her son died needlessly because dome politician wanted to grandstand. Stalin wanted Berlin, the people of the USSR wanted Berlin. Americans dying to take Berlin would be stupid.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @colm
  371. @Anonymous

    My tiny selection of stuff read ranging from the reliable to the barmy is obviously different from yours but last time I read anything much about the western invasion of Europe in 1944-45 Montgomery was still in command and deserves a place in your narrative and imputation of motives and purposes.

    As to “Khazarians”, which I take to refer to Koestler’s 13th Tribe thesis, I’m afraid that thesis is such obvious bunk (how come they spoke a German dialect was my first staring-you-in-the-face clue, and now confirmed by DNA testing) that you need to go back to the drawing board before venturing again on UR with such confidence.

  372. MarkinLA says:
    @utu

    You asked why there were not that many POWs. The Japanese had a record of extreme brutality towards POWs. The Japanese did what appeared to be a sneak attack to start the war. You can go on and on but expecting the US to be above it all is too much.

    I am not having it both ways. I don’t condemn what any soldier does in a situation I have never experienced and never will. That is why stories of atrocities in Iraq don’t bother me in terms of wanting to punish the soldier. The blame lies with generals and politicians sending 18 year old kids into shit holes and not with the soldiers.

    Those POWs taken by Russia were at the end of the war and happened when Japan knew they weren’t going to win so the leaders were more likely to surrender.

    • Replies: @utu
  373. @Ron Unz

    As to software Ron would you please add a Share option that can allow individual comments to be forwarded for later research or comment by a third party. I don’t know how far Share is device specific as I do nearly all my sharing from smartphones which display a considerable number of options from which I almost invariably choose my usual email service though perhaps sometimes SMS.

  374. @Wizard of Oz

    didn’t see an argument, just assertions.

  375. @MarkinLA

    After Ron mentioned it I spent some time reading H L Mencken on Roosevelt at http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1939mar-00257?View=PDF

    The first paragraph alone would have been enough to do in FDR’s heart. Mencken says FDR went to war to get votes; curious that he didn’t challenge Mr Stalin, and unfortunate that the entire New Deal was ineffective, run by incompetents, and necessitated another form of distraction in order to get elected, but it’s “an old gag,” said Mencken.

  376. Incitatus says:
    @Corvinus

    Unless I missed it (possible) you omit the high price of emigration from Nazi Germany. It wasn’t free, especially for Jews. Deciding to leave often meant you forfeited your life’s work (and only if you could find buyers). All to jump into the unknown. It wasn’t a fluke the Nazis forced Jews to pay for Kristallnacht.

    ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengl, Harvard alum, was a consummate opportunist pal of Adolf. Trying to attach credibility, let alone historical significance to him is even more elusive than the same exercise with down-and-out Rudolf Hess. In short, bunk.

  377. @Ron Unz

    Now I think you have just about saved me reading the book after all

    Aborted by software’s distaste for my smiley so repeated below.

  378. @Ron Unz

    Now I think you have just about saved me reading the book after all. ** Now I can see how the Unz version holds together without what seemed to me the essential element of Soviet fear of the atomic bomb being used under a Patton led or inspired war against the USSR. The big hurdle to leap now (in a priori terms) is accepting that someone like Donovan would be so far into the political assassination business. In the absence of satisfactory evidence of Donovan’s character, ideas and ambitions, to which I referred earlier, that requires one to take a broad view of the possibly relevant, and perhaps build something on the knowledge that most people (at least most young men even from the land of the Second Amendment in WW2) need to overcome a psychological barrier to killing. No doubt Donovan was well over that, at least in his capacity as remote drone pilot.
    **Phew! A smiley just about aborted 95 per cent of this post. There’s another software item for your attention.

  379. @Ron Unz

    I stand on the Ron Unz side. There are many of us who spent a big hunk of our lives in the military- for me it was active duty and years later active duty again and Reserves. Just because a man , say Donovan, had a great WW1 record does not say that much about his real underlying character, and not only that, people change to variable degrees. I do not know what Donovan’s true underlying personality was- was he a glory hound in WW1. Was he egotistical, selfish ,scheming? I do not know much about Donovan.
    I know of many with outstanding records in Vietnam who deep down were egotistical, self serving, cunning men. Thousands of officers have served in the Marine Corps and the US Army over the past 48 years which is the time period I am familiar with. At 17,18, I was an ignorant kid- ignorant about history and especially ignorant about human motives but I always could sense those who were bad and cunning.
    I am certain as is a friend of mine who was a SF soldier for half his career (and he taught me a lot about what motivates the big shots in the Army) that the majority of careerists will discard or ruin anyone who messes with their career progression or how they appear to others. I found this out on too many occasions. I came to realize that these men and women will lie and do whatever it takes to silence someone who is on to their poor work or bad behavior. I realized that their families came first and their kids were going to good colleges and if shits like me did anything to interfere with that then I would be crushed.
    The bottom line is just because someone has a good war or work record doesn’t mean that deep down that person is a decent, sincere, unselfish human being. What a person did many years before is often meaningless in trying to say what that person is truly like now. I knew a professional and read about him when he was an enlisted man in Vietnam. He seemed to take care of the men in his squad and was awarded medals for bravery. Years later he was becoming very wealthy performing large numbers of abortions. In witnessing how this doctor acted I saw that he didn’t give a damn about me or most people and money was his big motivator. I sensed that he was a cold, creepy person , and believe me, Vietnam did not make him this way- he always had it in him to be selfish and greedy and unconcerned about others when it served his purposes. Very simply, this was his character/personality structure all along. What I just said is simple common sense to all of you anyway, but unfortunately most people cannot sense who the sociopaths around them are.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  380. Lost American is how I prefer to be seen not the name above.

  381. utu says:
    @MarkinLA

    “The blame lies with generals and politicians ” – Sorry it won’t do. It did not work in Nuremberg and other trials.

    “You can go on and on but expecting the US to be above it all is too much.” – I do not expect the US to be above it all. But acknowledgement of what really was happening would be nice. Because without it the US and majority of its population keeps pretending it is above it all.

  382. ryanwc says:

    Bill O’Reilly wrote a book about this. He was interviewed on George Stephanopoulos’s show. The New York Post wrote about it. Media Matters has a piece about it.

    Some cover-up.

    Oh, and by the way, the general’s grandson is appalled and says it does discredit to the general’s memory. That Patton’s wife was always satisfied that the official story was accurate.

    What a strange article to write.

  383. @Ron Unz

    Maybe these articles shouldn’t have questions as titles. “Was General Patton Assassinated?” as a title kind of implies that the comment section is open for a civil and mutually respectful debate on the subject. If that is not the case, then drop the faux-question-mark.

  384. @Ron Unz

    Yep, hangs together. But you really have done a disservice to those $3 book sales Ron.

    Once one can, through study or imagination, but disciplined by a good idea of human and technological/scientific probabilities, get into minds of people very different from oneself and see how their mindsets and preconceptions might lead to the violent deeds and plans of people who aren’t just your everyday criminal psychopath, then those possibilities cross the threshold to credibility. Plus seeing how individual thresholds can be crossed, whether to allow the young soldier actually to aim at someone’s head, or to make a respectable citizen a determined tax avoider because of a great injustice, lawful or otherwise, inflicted by government.

    *** *** ***

    Time for JFK and Dallas – again? Not that I find myself remembering too much of the detailed evidence of what I see in TV docos. I found Colin McLaren’s 2013 “JFK – The Smoking Gun” thoroughly convincing though I found Daniel Pipes unmoved (probably insufficiently interested) and former spook Paul Monk quite angry about it for reasons I can’t explain. Then there was another JFK assasination TV doco I saw later which I vaguely remember confirmed that there was no bizarre or sinister mystery.

    Now another Colin McLaren doco on Princess Diana’s death has just been shown and seems to show up some inadequacies in the French police investigation but I can’t recall anything significant about its conclusion only a few days after seeing it. That leads to two points.

    One is a generalisation about TV news, current affairs and drama in its vast abundance by its very nature making little impact, lasting or at all, on people’s minds compared with the way information arrived 50+ years ago by radio or newspapers (or BBC TV in the UK). That relates to your American Pravda theme.

    Another, also relevant to how people, including editors and journalists, handle presumptively important new or revised news, is more personal. Some people at least who would be regarded by others as having good memories quickly forget detail once they have ticked whatever box seems relevant at the time and perhaps assured themselves that nothing ultimately irretrievable will be lost if it later proves important. Children cram their memories with junk like car registration numbers. Most adults more or less instinctively save mental energy by retaining information (like telephone numbers) for only a few seconds or the odd minute. (I used to ring my office answering service at or after midnight to leave say 5 requests and memoranda for my secretary and then, the next day, find myself saying “X, I know I left five messages for you last night. Remind me what they were”).

    So I am not sure whether to put down my not remembering much of the latest Princess Diana’s death doco (which I watched because of McLaren’s involvement to assess him rather than because of any interest in PD’s death) to typical contemporary overload, efficient use of the brain given the limited focus of my interest or….whatever. Anyway I proffer these thoughts as perhaps contributing to the multivariate and multifaceted nature of, and explanations of, your American Pravda exhibits. (No, I am no believer in a fantastically well co-ordinated Deep State unlike some of your commenters. Fashionable groupthink yes. More or less accidental conjunctions of interest in the same errors of vision and fact yes. A Deep State that proves by its competence that Communism could have been made to work? Nope.)

    And I would like to know your take on the cover up of JFK’s being shot accidentally by a new recruit to the Secret Service who was normally a driver. It makes sense if the alleged facts stand up to examination. Which makes it very like the Patton murder where I would start with every available detail touching the events on the road and in the hospital if I were to try and test Wilcox’s story. (Inconsistencies from the written record in all its forms would of course also have to be looked for with an eagle eye if one were opposing his account, but, still, events on the day on the road would be the ones which could be conclusive as physical evidence about recovered cartridges and bullets could be for competing JFK assassination versions).

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  385. @Avery

    U.S. military, national security agencies vexed by dependence on Russian rocket engines

    Its circa 1985 technology, and is 31 years old design by now. We have developed more advanced rocket engine systems since then. For example, SpaceX reuseable rocket can land vertically.

    SpaceX Falcon 9 – Successful Drone Ship Landing – 8th April 2016

    Early Russian space program got a boost with a little help from Germans. Admittedly, we did to.

    Operation Osoaviakhim

    the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union

    the operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Avery
  386. @ryanwc

    Consider it part of Ron’s American Pravda theme. Anyway, if you are concerned with truth rather than some delicate idea of good taste, what have persuasive value do the expressed views of his family contribute?

    As to cover up – or, more accurately, the lack of reaction to Wilcox’s book in the US – I too got the same Google result as you and, apart from Ron’s own related responses I don’t find an article by Wilcox himself in the New York Post much evidence of interest in the most thoroughly researched book on Patton’s death.

  387. Ace says:
    @Quartermaster

    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.

  388. Ace says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    An veteran’s account of the land war in the Pacific I read pointed out that Allied troops soon learned that the Japanese would not surrender and did not treat POWs well. Accordingly they adjusted their own behavior and obliged the Japanese by killing them. Some thought a needless waste but saw that it was the choice of the Japs.

    Jap barbarism was also well know early on in the war and it should surprise no one that American troops enjoyed killing Japs. One Marine on Guadalcanal or some island listened to the screams of a buddy who was captured. This went on for two or three days till the Japs threw the captured man’s body out of their tunnel.

    The Japs engaged in medical research on the crew of one of Doolittle’s raiders. The Japs got what they deserved.

  389. @ryanwc

    I assume from your post that you’ve jumped in without bothering to read what has gone before. Windbag O’Reilly’s book has already been discussed and not with great reverence.

  390. Ace says:
    @Avery

    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.

  391. @Wizard of Oz

    Oh please! The Secret Service accidental shooting nonsense is only worth consideration if one excludes a mountain of contradictory evidence and testimony. Seriously Wiz, step away from the keyboard and take some deep breaths, oxygen is good for the brain. Try to breathe with your mouth closed. Try reading JFK and the unspeakable. The Last Investigation is good too.

  392. Ace says:
    @Avery

    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.

  393. Ace says:
    @utu

    ** incentivized with ice cream **

    Seriously?

    • Replies: @utu
  394. @Ron Unz

    Calling people some variety of “tard” is not an effective debating tactic. Do only tards doubt other hypotheses, such as the alleged (and highly implausible) assassination of Princess Diana? Sometimes a historical consensus does need to be challenged, but you need much more evidence than this to do so persuasively, and meanwhile we are left with this smear of Donovan. And yes,I do think you have also smeared McCain.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Wizard of Oz
  395. @Lost american

    Good post.

    The bottom line is just because someone has a good war or work record doesn’t mean that deep down that person is a decent, sincere, unselfish human being.

    Especially when their “record” glosses over the many shortcomings or embellishes the few achievements which is what typically seems to happen if yer in the right clique.

  396. @Hippopotamusdrome

    “Its circa 1985 technology, and is 31 years old design by now.”

    Age of the technology is a secondary consideration to MTBF in these sorts of things.

  397. @Anonymous

    Another good comment and relevant too.

    Talk about media blackouts! Who, today, has ever heard of Eustace Mullins or Ezra Pound? Of course they were either “crazy” or “anti-Semitic” or both. Yes, of course! ;)

  398. @NoseytheDuke

    Can you provide your preferred links please.

    I am unaware of most of the testimony and would be interested in what testimony you would rely on, not least because you say only a fool would rely on the testimony of those who say they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  399. Avery says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    {[U.S. military, national security agencies vexed by dependence on Russian rocket engines]}

    {Its circa 1985 technology, and is 31 years old design by now. }

    So much more embarrassing for the “technology transfer from the West” US to rely on Soviet/Russian ‘circa 1985 technology, and is 31 years old design by now’, Yes? No?

    {We have developed more advanced rocket engine systems since then. For example, SpaceX reuseable rocket can land vertically.}

    When U.S. military and national security agencies start using SpaceX for their payloads routinely instead of Russian engines, come back and boast about hi-tech. Until then, sour grapes.

    The best ground attack jet ever is the A-10 Thunderbolt. Entered service in 1976. 40 year old design. By contrast, hi-tech wonders F-35 and F-22 that cost gazzillion dollars to develop, have yet to prove themselves in combat (F-22) or even enter service (F-35).

    Old and not so old Russian bombers and fighters – Su-24, Su-27, Su-35 – have been pulverizing terrorists in a real war. Where are F-22s and F-35s when you really need them . The most numerous bomber in USAF is the B-52, far outnumbering B-1s, and B-2s. Did you know that? Do you know how old the B-52 is?

    Super hi-tech F-16 was total failure in Viet-Nam. GIs preferred to use the venerable old Russian AK-47 they took from NV or Viet-Cong. Mud, rain, hot, humidity: AK-47 kept shooting. F-16s jammed after a few rounds: required maintenance constantly. So much for hi-tech.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  400. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I am unaware of most of the testimony and would be interested in what testimony you would rely on, not least because you say only a fool would rely on the testimony of those who say they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.

    Well, I’ve personally never investigated the 2001 attack on the Pentagon and can’t really say what happened. But here’s an interesting tidbit in that regard…

    A couple of years back, I was talking with an old friend of mine, someone with very strong connections in elite French circles. I can’t quite remember the discussion, but at one point, he argued that even the smartest and most knowledgeable people sometimes have “totally crazy” beliefs.

    As an example, he cited a former French Defense Minister, known to be especially smart, capable, and level-headed. Apparently, some time ago at a private dinner party with top French journalists, he told all of them that the Pentagon had actually been hit by a missile not by the hijacked plane that the entire American MSM always claims.

    As I said, I can’t say what really happened. But offhand, it seems to me that the French Intelligence service is one of the best five or six in the world, and they’d probably be quite interested in finding out what really happened on 9/11…

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  401. Sean says:

    “ In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[4] ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

    • Replies: @Avery
  402. utu says:
    @Ace

    ** incentivized with ice cream **

    Yes, according to Richard Aldrich (Professor of History at Nottingham University) and Niall Ferguson.

    in 1943, “a secret [U.S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would … induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese.”

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

    I think that the issue of not taking POW by American GI’s,which is totally covered up and conveniently forgotten, deserves a special note by American Pravda. Mr. Unz, are you reading it?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  403. Avery says:
    @Sean

    {In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. }

    In a few words:

    SU first to send an Earth orbit satellite (Sputnik).
    SU first to send a man into space.
    SU pioneered robotic exploration of space (Lunokhod). It took US another 20+ years to catch up.
    …….
    SU exploded the largest hydrogen bomb ever, the Tsar Bomba.

    Today US is relying on ‘no such thing as Soviet technology’ (Russian rocket engines) for its crucial military and national security needs.

    Clearly, ‘no such thing as Soviet (Russian) technology’.
    Right.

    • Replies: @colm
  404. @Ron Unz

    I can’t say for sure what happened either but one look at the pics taken of the building immediately after the attack should be enough to convince anyone that what was reported in the MSM as having happened couldn’t possibly have happened so it is very possible and probable that the Frenchman was correct.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  405. While it really was a conspiracy that killed Lincoln, it was one quickly unravelled. In most cases Occam’s Razor suggests things are as they appear, meaning the Pentagon was hit by a plane and Building 7 collapsed because planes hit the buildings next to it, because of a conspiracy orchestrated by al-Qaida; while the deaths of George Patton and Princess Diana were neither conspiracies nor assassinations.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  406. Rehmat says:

    Ron UNZ, in case you missed – before she became a ‘mother’ of America’s feminist movement, Gloria Steinem was member of America’s communists party and also worked for the CIA.
    However, the Jewish couple Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was not that lucky. Both were tried, convicted, and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage for communist Soviet Union.

    In an article published in the ‘Jewish daily Forward’ (March 9, 2011) – Itzik Gottesman revealed the dirty secret about his mother-in-law Judith Socolov, who died on February 26, 2011.

    Judith Socolov (aka Judith Coplon), an employee at US State Department in 1949 – was arrested for passing classified documents to a USSR agent Valetin Gubitchev, whom she claimed to be her lover. She was convicted but under pressure from the powerful Jewish groups – the case against her was dropped by US Justice Department in 1967 (you bet your $ it would not had happened if she had been a Muslim). Even the appeal court judge who overturned her conviction on technical ground believed she was guilty of espionage.

    Judith is listed as a Spy Master at Spy Museum website….

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/03/10/itzik-my-mother-in-law-was-a-jewish-spy/

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  407. @Avery

    Speaking of AK-47s…

    [MORE]

    Hugo Schmeisser

    Hugo Schmeisser was one of the most influential and prolific developers of weapons of the 20th century.

    On April 3, 1945, American troops began to occupy the city of Suhl.

    One month later, the Red Army assumed control over the area, starting a civilian works project to manufacture weapons for the Soviet Union. By August 1945, the Red Army had created 50 StG44s from existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10,785 sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of their research. In October 1945, Schmeisser was forced to work for the Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons.

    Schmeisser’s brilliance impressed the Red Army, and he, along with other weapons designers and their families, were relocated to the USSR. Schmeisser’s work while in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness.

    General Designer of small arms for the Soviet Army, Mikhail Kalashnikov’s design subordinates included the Germans Hugo Schmeisser, designer of the StG-44, and Werner Grüner (of MG 42 fame) who was a pioneer in sheet metal embossing technology in the 1950s.

    Schmeisser’s stay in the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon specialists by six months.

    • Replies: @Avery
  408. aeolius says:
    @guest

    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?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  409. Hibernian says:
    @Planet Albany

    Senator Mc Cain is libel proof.

  410. Hibernian says:
    @aeolius

    Peace treaties go back a lot farther than Versailles. Versailles failed because it was vindictive and little better than unconditional surrender.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Incitatus
  411. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated?

    Reminded me of my asking a dazzler a faux question just to fill the air with a little chat, and she replying: “That’s a rethorical question.”
    :)

    Great piece. I know it’s silly, but I am not going to leave the page without saying: thanks, for the quality of your information pieces, and the choice of issues.

  412. @SolontoCroesus

    I can’t help it. Dates and figures do it to me. Frye was born in January 1920 and his younger brother William was at university with him for 3 years so I assume William was born about January 1921. As he was 93 when you travelled with him that puts you in Iran in 2014 (about the time RF died though not late enough to run into the controversy over his burial) ???

  413. @NoseytheDuke

    I note without more comment that there are accounts on the www of how the photographs and known damage are consistent with the plane having struck the outer circle of the Pentagon slightly asymmetrically, having its wings snapped off and then ploughing on till it was stopped by another circle (if that’s the right word) of the Pentagon.

    But note that Ron doesn’t conclude that, because French intelligence might have been interested in the truth that they were actually able to learn it or put any significant resources into doing so. Moreover his informant was someone who regarded the minister’s belief as crazy.

    So I would ask for reasons
    (a) why the great majority of eye witnesses were mistaken;
    (d) why anyone would add to the 9/11 ingredients an elaborately concealed and obfuscated missile attack on a small part of the Pentagon plus the disappearance of Flight 77.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  414. @utu

    Surely “covered up” are overused words in cases where one learns of one of the 100 million facts and ideas one might find interesting and even important and, sensibly enough, wonders why one hasn’t heard it before. For example, Germaine Greer’s early 70s book “The Female Eunuch” listed distinguished female writers of past centuries whose names and work had been lost in academe. It is easy to believe explanations unfavourable to men in general and some men in particular but sinister “cover up” doesn’t strike me as a helpful suggestion.

  415. @Planet Albany

    Occam’s Razor assumes a genuine desire to get to the truth whereas in the case of the attack on the Pentagon and WTC 7 the opposite is the case.

    By all means you may believe in whatever you wish and also, always remember to put any teeth that fall out under your pillow.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  416. @Rehmat

    Not interested enough to follow this up exhaustively but from what I can see the successful appeals and ultimate dropping of the case had nothing to do with Coplon being Jewish and everything to do with illegal/no warrant bugging by the FBI. Mind you she married her attorney so he may have been trying very hard.

  417. @dfordoom

    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?

  418. @Hibernian

    Which is hardly reason for the Allies not to want to deny Germans the 1918 myth that they weren’t really beaten, only stabbed in the back.

    Anyway… starting perhaps with Keynes’s criticisms, how would you have ensured against revanchism in Germany at Versailles?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  419. @Planet Albany

    I’m sure Ron was using the French word without a thought for how it might chime in English. So its only a borderline Trigger Warning case.

  420. @NoseytheDuke

    Back to you for “the mountain of contradictory [sic] evidence and testimony.

    At the outset I am happy not to dismiss McLaren’s (and Donahue’s) work as paranoid or cynical because it is entirely plausible that a Secret Srrvice stuff up would be concealed by them, by the FBI under Hoover and by the Atorney-General Robert Kennedyas well as LBJ. All they had to believe to make this seem OK was that Oswald had fired shots in an attempt to kill JFK and believing that there are nutters who try and do just that sort of thing is one of the major reasonswhy you have a Secret Service.

    What is relevant to deciding whether the accidental shooting by Hickey is a tenable thesis?

    1. Were there three cartridge cases found in the 6th floor room that Oswald was in?
    2. Was the rate of possible aimed fire by Oswald using a bolt action rifle (said to be 2.2 seconds between rounds) consistent with objective evidence from the Zapruder film and otherwise? If the bullet which (almost certainly) hit both JFK and Connally (and anyway was the first to hit JFK) was fired at Zapruder frame 224 could Oswald have fired the shot which killed JFK?
    3.And soon if anyone is interested to look into the detail….

  421. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Reply to 422:

    Perhaps it had something to do with the meeting of a dozen or so Pentagon White Hats who were meeting exactly there, in a section that was largely empty, because of remodelling work.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  422. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ed

    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 .

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  423. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Emblematic

    You lost me at Regnery.

  424. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @TheDaughter

    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.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  425. Incitatus says:
    @Hibernian

    “Versailles failed because it was vindictive and little better than unconditional surrender.”

    Alas, poor, poor Germany.

    Versailles failed because Germans hadn’t experienced war on their own soil – it was still an academic exercise. Clausewitz’s “War is merely the continuation of policy by other means” was all very well in the 1830s. It wasn’t as sage in the 20C, when weapons could easily exterminate thousands, destroy cities, and irrevocably poison the countryside. In 1919 the Huns hadn’t experienced their own “continuation of policy by other means.”

    The main price exacted by Versailles was bruised (but intact) pride, a pride easily exploited by nitwits like Ludendorf and Hindenburg, and the German General Staff. It diverted attention from their incompetence and close escape from mutiny. Hitler built on that foundation.

    Vindictive?

    Vindictive would have been burning the German National Library, killing a few hundred civilians, burning a couple thousand dwellings, and expelling the population of Berlin (like Leuvan).

    Vindictive would have been taking 23,700 German civilians out and shooting them (the number of neutral Belgian civilians killed by military action and reprisal executions); then sequestering an additional 62,000 until they died from famine and exposure.

    Vindictive would have been leveling 85% of Köln, burning the Dom (cathedral) and then shelling what remained for target practice (see Reims and the Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Reims).

    Vindictive would have been leveling German villages, expelling their populations, and turning large swaths of land into moonscapes littered with live munitions and skeletal remains even today (see Verdun, Ypres, Somme, etc.).

    Alas, poor, poor Germany.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  426. Hibernian says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Try recognizing guilt on both sides and not denying them the right to self-defense in the future (the prohibition of an Air Force.) Try not mocking them by prohibiting any merger with tiny Austria. Recognize that the war was started by an Allied power, Serbia, enabled by another Allied power, Russia. Recognize that class ridden Britain, which happened to be allied with autocratic Russia, was, in its own internal arrangements, only marginally more democratic than Germany. Consider the British blockade of Germany. In view of all of the above, forgo reparations payments or limit them to a nominal sum.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  427. Hibernian says:
    @Incitatus

    No mention of the British blockade. No mention of the fact that the war was started by an Allied nation, Serbia, enabled by another Allied nation, autocratic Russia.

    Anglophilia can be fun.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Incitatus
  428. @Anonymous

    Perhaps, perhaps, but that only deàls with one small part of the picture which has to be made coherent.

  429. @Hibernian

    I’ve got impoverished Irish Catholuc ancestry too. But it doesn’t mean one has to keep the brain switched off whenever the Poms are in peripheral vision. What has the British blockade (any more than the U boat blockade) got to do with Versailles, or vindictiveness as discussed by Incitatus.

    And Irishmen don’t have to be so wrong on facts,even random irrelevant ones such as you tossed in. How you justify saying the war was started by Serbia I can’t imagine, or that whatever it did was preceded by Russian facilitation. (Do you know what concessions Serbia offered to Austria-Hungary under threat after the Sarajevo assassination btw?) Not that any of that has to do with replying to Incitatus’s points.

    And how was Serbia an ally of the Brits in July 1914? Trolling, carelessness, or ignorance?

    My conments are independent of agreeing with Incitatus or not.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  430. Avery says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Mikhail Kalashnikov came up with the concept of (later) AK-47 in 1941, while recuperating in hospital from a shoulder wound…
    Design work on AK-47 began before the end of WW2, before SU had their hands on Schmeisser.

    It is common in the business to learn from what others have done, and improve upon it. Both US and SU launched their space exploration work based on German development of V1, V2, etc.

    Nazi Germans were so impressed by the revolutionary T-34, that they copied it in their Panzer V Panther.

    So far, your efforts to denigrate Soviet/Russian designers, scientists, engineers have fallen flat. As noted in another post, SU pioneered the robotic exploration of space with Lunokhod. Mars Pathfinder was 20+ years later: I can make the claim that US copied the Pathfinder from Soviet Lunokhod. Will that work?

  431. @Hibernian

    Well yes, if you don’t accept that you have really been beaten because your àrmies are still in other people’s countries and then, while your currency and middle class savings are being destroyed by inflation, you are pressed for impossible reparation payments to the countries whose towns and farms you have destroyed I suppose one can understand the popular appeal of the revanchistes.

    It doesn’t make it less easy to understand the possible rationale for demanding unconditional surrender in WW2 though. Keeping it simple amongst two or three powerful allies was prima facie at least a good idea and unlikely to have stiffened the backbone of German resistance as much as the Gestapo and SS shooting 50,000 supposed deserters in the last weeks of the war. And it occurs to me that unconditional surrender had a predictable big payoff in future. That is in the response to Allied generosity and fairmindedness in the aftermath, particularly for the West in comparison with the USSR.

  432. @NoseytheDuke

    Good comment!

    I have to laugh, too, when they claim Bldg 7 fell because nearby buildings collapsed, when the Empire State Bldg had itself been hit by a gasoline laden bomber and I believe it’s still standing, though I have not seen it lately. But I guess they don’t build ‘em like they used to. Must be a “kunspiracy” er sumpin! ;)

  433. Boomstick says:
    @Darin

    Requesting a staff plan is not particularly surprising. It would be criminal for the Western military services to not have a plan. Staff plans help clarify thinking and outline what’s possible and what isn’t.

  434. Boomstick says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    That’s silly. The Japanese had correctly identified the American invasion sites and had moved a almost half of their home islands military there. They had thousands of kamikaze planes–several times more than at Okinowa, where they badly hurt the US navy–and more favorable terrain for conducting attacks. The US badly underestimated Japanese ground forces, so if anything the US casualty estimates were low.

    Strategic Bombing Survey:

    From October, 1944, to the end of the Okinawa campaign, the Japanese flew 2,550 Kamikaze missions, of which 475, or 18.6 percent were effective in securing hits or damaging near misses. Warships of all types were damaged, including 12 aircraft carriers, 15 battleships, and 16 light and escort carriers. However, no ship larger than an escort carrier was sunk. Approximately 45 vessels were sunk, the bulk of which were destroyers. The Japanese were misled by their own inflated claims of heavy ships sunk, and ignored the advice of their technicians that a heavier explosive head was required to sink large ships. To the United States the losses actually sustained were serious, and caused great concern. Two thousand B-29 sorties were diverted from direct attacks on Japanese cities and industries to striking Kamikaze air fields in Kyushu. Had the Japanese been able to sustain an attack of greater power and concentration they might have been able to cause us to withdraw or to revise our strategic plans.

    At the time of surrender, the Japanese had more than 9,000 planes in the home islands available for Kamikaze attack, and more than 5,000 had already been specially fitted for suicide attack to resist our planned invasion.

    There is no “Pacific Air War Survey” that I can find.

  435. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I was drinking beer in a bar in Louisville, near Ft. Knox, some years ago and two older guys and I were discussing WW2. They said they were veterans of Patton’s 3rd Army. They then told me Patton was murdered by his own troops. “His guts, our blood” was their saying for him. He liked to ride around in a jeep with a 50 calabre so he could stand up, and look around supporting himself with the machine gun. The jeep had a windshield that folded down on the hood which is the way it was on the day he was killed. Some soldiers strung communications wire across the road he was on, and his driver ran into it decapitating the driver and fatally wounding Patton. That was their story, and I have never heard of it since or before that night in the bar.

  436. @Boomstick

    There is no “Pacific Air War Survey” that I can find.

    Why quibble about semantics? This is probably what is being referred to.

    “Summary Report (Pacific War)”

    https://archive.org/stream/summaryreportpac00unit#page/n5/mode/2up

  437. Incitatus says:
    @Hibernian

    “No mention of the fact that the war was started by an Allied nation, Serbia, enabled by another Allied nation, autocratic Russia.”

    Kind of like a playground fight? Who hit who first? How tedious.

    • 28 Jun 1914 – Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip assassinates Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo;
    • 05 Jul 1914 – Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 25 Jul 1914 – Serbia accepts most of the ultimatum but is rebuffed by Austria-Hungary;
    • 28 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia;
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    • 02 Aug 1914 – Germany invades Luxembourg and besieges Longwy “the iron gate to Paris;”
    • 03 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on France; France declares war on Germany;
    • 04 Aug 1914 – Germany invades neutral Belgium; UK declares war on Germany;
    • 16 Aug 1914 – Germany captures Liège;
    • 25 Aug 1914 – Germany sacks Leuvan, burns the famous medieval library, destroys 2,000 civilian dwellings, expels it’s entire population (10,000);
    • 23 Aug 1914 – German troops reach the French border town of Mauberge;

    No question interlocking treaty obligations and alliances were a suicide pact. And blockheads in every country were eager to keep it. Germany discarded any option to diffuse the situation and mollify rotten Austria-Hungary in other ways. Was Serbia such a threat to justify war? Could Habsburg pride have been served without war?

    Helmuth von Moltke advocated offensive war as early as 1912. Preemptive attack would (with the Schlieffen Plan) neutralize France and allow turning east to defeat Russia before the latter could rearm. Serbia gave them the perfect excuse. Nitwits like von Moltke, von Hindenburg, Ludendorf, and von Falkenhayn were eager to lead the charge.

    Declarations of war were first issued by Austria-Hungary (before Russia mobilized) and by Germany. The first invasions were launched by Germany. No one forced Austria-Hungary’s intransigence. No one forced Germany to declare war and invade. No one forced Germany to rape neutral Belgium and spend years destroying northern France.

    ‘No mention of the British blockade”

    Are you suggesting it caused the war? What’s your point? And the U-Boats?

    Germany lost ±763,000 civilians (1.18% population) to disease and famine. Neutral Belgium lost about the same ratio (1.16%), but 28% of them were killed in military action and/or reprisal executions – i.e. Huns rounded up and and shot civilians. The remaining 72% died from famine and exposure (Germans intentionally burned their dwellings).

    Serbia? It won the death lottery. 17.8% of it’s civilians died. 27.8% of it’s population (including military kia) perished. France lost 4.4%. Total deaths in the German Reich? 4.3% of the Volk.

    Alas, poor, poor Germany.

  438. @Boomstick

    Who’s claim is silly? I think yours takes 1st prize here.

    JAPAN’S STRUGGLE TO END THE WAR

    The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. Although the Supreme War Direction Council, in its deliberations on the Potsdam Declaration, was agreed on the advisability of ending the war, three of its members, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister, were prepared to accept unconditional surrender…

    The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion and while Japan was still possessed of some 2,000,000 troops and over 9,000 planes in the home islands.

    Military defeats in the air, at sea and on the land, destruction of shipping by submarines and by air, and direct air attack with conventional as well as atomic bombs, all contributed to this accomplishment. There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan’s unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan’s disaster…Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

    Summary report (Pacific war) Washington, D.C., 1 July 1946, by United States Strategic Bombing Survey, p 26

    https://ia801405.us.archive.org/12/items/summaryreportpac00unit/summaryreportpac00unit.pdf

    • Replies: @Boomstick
  439. Corvinus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “The information you provide here suggests that you are Jewish and it would be usefully informative to know something of your relevant background just as I find that Sam Shama’s contributions don’t have to be treated like glimpses of hieroglyphics on shards.”

    I am not Jewish. I am Polish, German, and Dutch. A mutt American.

  440. @dearieme

    Jews automatically assume that anyone opposed to their rule of the world, is clinically insane.

  441. @Lawrence Fitton

    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.

  442. @Hibernian

    Not in the eyes of blood thirsty Americans.

  443. Boomstick says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    The question of whether the scheduled November 1 invasion of Kyushu would have been a walkover as the original poster asserted was the silly part. MacArthur was walking into a well-prepared Japanese defense and a disaster.

    The Strategic Bombing Survey was written by air power advocates and made a number of judgements about the war in both Europe and Japan that are hotly disputed today. The attempted coup against the Emperor after the decision to surrender was made showed he had questionable control over the military. The instructions to the Japanese envoy to Moscow rejected unconditional surrender and occupation in any event.

  444. @Anonymous

    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?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  445. @Wizard of Oz

    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?

  446. @MarkinLA

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  447. @Ivan

    You say Stalin “knew” that the US had no more than two or three bombs and I would be interested in the evidence for that (one of the better accounts of the spies perhaps). But that doesn’t conclude the matter for two reasons. One is that Stalin was (sometimes rightly) suspicious of information that others gave him and may not have thought it wise to rely on that estimate being correct at the relevant time. The other is that he might well have considered that the bombs would be dropped on some vital centres of his war machine which, in 1945, could not have been hardened against atomic weapons.

    So….as I was hypothesising earlier, Stalin’s fear of an attack by an opponent with atomic bombs could well have been the most comprehensible motive for killing someone with Patton’s views and influence. But, according to Ron’s analysis, based on the Wilcox book, that wasn’t what happened, or why…..

  448. @Carroll Price

    I can remember a Jewish lawyer, later a senior judge fwiw, correcting me in 1975 0r 76 when I quoted a figure I had read somewhere of 4 million.

  449. @The Alarmist

    It’s just not in the nature of politicians – not least ones like Truman – to rush into making big decisions which will have an uncertain effect on their winning an election in three years time.

  450. @Ron Unz

    What I’m really getting quite sentimental about on a re-reading is the good old days. The honorable assassin took $10,000 from Donovan in early to mid 1945 and still hadn’t thought by mid December of a more advantageous course than killing Patton. If Donovan wasn’t ripe for blackmail at least the killer could have got himself an agent.

  451. Hibernian says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The British blockade severely affected German civilians. Serbia instigated the assassination of the Archduke and Archduchess. They were crazy. They were emboldened because Tsarist Russia was their traditional protector. They agreed to a large part of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum; that wasn’t enough for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There was a chain of alliances before the war, Serbia-Russia-France-UK. These became the Allied powers at the beginning of the war. As the war progressed Italy, Japan, and the US joined.

    In view of all of the above, a little more humility on the part of the victorious Allies would have been in order.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Incitatus
  452. @Carroll Price

    Your knowledge of history is totally flawed by gross anachronism. Germany was an emerging economic rival (to Britain but not the US) 50 years before but not after WW1. And the idea of “Zionist controlled England” is a sign of something close to madness, especially if you actually know that Britain, in Palestine, was actually limiting the immigration of Jews! But perhaps you don’t know which makes one wonder who you think you can influence on a blog like this where there are a number of people who are quite well read and well informed and suitably sceptical and modest in assessing evidence and assertions which are not familiar to them.

    • Replies: @Rudel
  453. @Hibernian

    Who were the “they” whom you say were crazy? Are you saying that Gavrilo Prinzep was acting as an agent of the Serbian government? If so on what authority or evidence?

    Are you denying the chronology set put by Incitatus? Or that it was pursuant to its treaty obligations wrt Belgium and Germany’s flouting of them that Britain declared war after Germany?

    So what has the fact that the war was started by Austria-Hungary with Germany’s support against Serbia got to with what you say should have happened at Versailles?

  454. Incitatus says:
    @Hibernian

    “Serbia instigated the assassination of the Archduke and Archduchess.”

    The Kingdom of Serbia was behind the assassination? Proof and sources please.

    “They [Serbia] were crazy.”

    There wasn’t any shortage of crazies on all sides. Some might say, for example, Austria-Hungary, given it’s decayed state, was crazy to turn down Serbia’s offer and declare war. Others might contend Germany was crazy to back rotten Austria-Hungary and launch war without assuring an adequate food supply. Go figure.

    “…a little more humility on the party of the victorious Allies would have been better.”

    By Marshall Plan standards you’re right. But what were the standards of the time? Look how victorious Germany treated France in 1871. After invading France and besieging Metz, winning Sedan, and besieging Paris they’d killed 138,000, wounded 143,000, taken 474,000 prisoners, and witnessed the Commune take up to another 20,000 souls. Though the damage had been on the French side, Germany demanded Alsace-Lorraine and 5 billion gold francs (the largest indemnity in history). When France objected and tried to negotiate a smaller figure Bismarck wrote “We will see see if we can get 5 billion…France being the richest country in Europe, nothing could keep her quiet but effectually to empty her pockets.” German Troops were to remain on French soil until the full amount was paid.

    Vindictive? How about punitive? Bismarck got his full 5 billion. The last installment was paid in early September 1873, two years ahead of schedule. German troops withdrew from France two weeks later.

    Fast forward to Versailles 1919. Reparations were reduced and refinanced under the Dawes Plan (1924), then the Young Plan (1930). In the end, Germany paid 12.5% of the the total reparations prior to repudiating it in 1933. The US, having extended unpaid credit to Germany during that period, effectively became a donor to Germany.

    By it’s own 1871-73 standards, Germany 1919-33 was simply a ‘deadbeat’ with a very large chip on it’s shoulder. A state born in and profiting from conquest, military action (ala Clauswitz) was their preferred first and last alternative in foreign relations. Having visited ruin upon their neighbors, they’d never experienced it on their own soil.

    We should have sympathy for German civilian deaths from famine, which were indeed tragic. But isn’t the regime that launched war be at least 51% responsible? How about their victims, who suffered as much or more (often by deliberate German war crimes)? How about their infliction of irreparable damage on cities, countryside and infrastructure?

    Would any treaty have prevented WW2? It’s doubtful. The pride of the German General Staff, which had wisely delegated armistice negotiations to civilians when the army was on the edge of mutiny) was intact, a fertile field for the ‘stab in the back’ legend pushed by Ludendorf and later Hitler.

    Options to armistice in 1918? The Allies could have fought until German forces mutinied, invaded Germany, and exacted a peace in the Rome vs. Carthage tradition (something that happened 26 years later). But the UK and France were exhausted (France alone lost more men that the US in it’s entire history) , and the US had less of a dog in the fight. So everyone took a time out.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  455. The Ardennes battle was the largest battle of 1944. It was also the American army’s largest battle in history. Their is more to the battle than Bastogne.
    *The Bloody Buckets (28 ID) fought against great odds for three days to keep the road to Bastogne open.
    *The 4 ID held the south shoulder, which in able Patton to march, not fight most of the way.
    *Eric’s Wood’s regiment surrendered, but he didn’t. He collected some stragglers and attacked German convoys for a week. When he was found, he was surrounded by six dead Germans.
    * The damned engineers. There were enough battalion to be equal to three divisions. The engineers built roadblocks and blew up bridges.
    *Parker’s cross roads
    * The 7 ARD and the 82th ABD delayed the Germans at St Vich.
    *The Hell on Wheels (2 ARD) stopped the furthest penetration at Celles.
    There are many stories. The American victory was truly a triumph of courage.

  456. colm says:
    @MarkinLA

    In the long term perspective of history, some mother crying for her son, who probably didn’t have an IQ exceeding 130 anyways, is nothing.

    Denying Stalin the ultimate is the greatest ‘reward’ the West to give him. The people of USSR would be pissed that it would not get Berlin, and would eventually lose confidence on it faster.

    In fact if Stalin were denied Berlin I don’t think there would be a “Russia” today, but just a bunch of quarreling small nations.

    • Replies: @Avery
  457. colm says:
    @Sean

    An incredible story is the vehicle driver who killed Walton Walker, a Korean, was to be executed according to Korean military law but someone in the US top brass ‘recommended’ the driver not to be shot. Of course he was never heard again.

  458. colm says:
    @ryanwc

    Whatever they say. The family, often, are the deepest in the trough. By ‘acknowledging’ the official history they get lucrative perks, which end immediately the moment they begin to speak the truth. Eventually they get to believe the ‘official’ story as the real one since that keeps their position in society.

  459. colm says:
    @Avery

    In a way, by spreading the tech to USSR, the ‘liberal’ Western Elites could use Russia as a testing ground for stuff they didn’t want to try first at home.

    • Replies: @Avery
  460. Avery says:
    @colm

    {In a way, by spreading the tech to USSR,}

    SU developed its own tech.
    No cigar: try it again.

    And……

    {SU first to send an Earth orbit satellite (Sputnik).
    SU first to send a man into space.
    SU pioneered robotic exploration of space (Lunokhod). It took US another 20+ years to catch up.
    …….
    SU exploded the largest hydrogen bomb ever, the Tsar Bomba.

    Today US is relying on ‘no such thing as Soviet technology’ (Russian rocket engines) for its crucial military and national security needs.

    Clearly, ‘no such thing as Soviet (Russian) technology’.
    Right.}

  461. Avery says:
    @colm

    {In fact if Stalin were denied Berlin …}

    Exactly who was going to deny the Red Army Berlin homes?
    Nothing and nobody could stop it.

    The beaten down German panzers totally routed US army at the Battle of Bulge in 44. Most GIs ran for their lives.
    Saved only by USAF.

    Self conscious losers in the West, suffering from some kind of a complex, still hallucinating that they had anything to do with the utter destruction of Wehrmacht by the heroic Red Army and the heroic Soviet peoples.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  462. Sam Shama says:
    @Incitatus

    Greatly enjoyed this summary.

    John Maynard Keynes held the view – a common enough attitude amongst more than a few in the British nobility – that in his estimation the harsh price exacted at Versailles [he went into details by industry and possible sources for the reparations], would consign Germany to a sub-optimal level of economic growth for decades to come, but went on to remark that it was in keeping with treasure squeezed out by Bismarck.

    Still, he was advocating leniency at Versailles. I like to think that the Marshall Plan and then fast forward to the creation of the Eurozone finally brought to a halt, the reciprocities of war followed by reparations on european soil, starting with the Romans.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  463. Incitatus says:
    @Sam Shama

    Hi Sam,

    Keynes had it right: “In the long run we are all dead.”

    I’d like to think there was a better way, a Marshal plan of the time. But most of the physical damage was outside the Reich. Food and monetary aid for Germany? Dawes and Young didn’t seem to have much luck in the second department (granted American banks, especially Morgan, had profits in mind).

    Leniency might have assuaged victor’s guilt, but wouldn’t it also feed wounded German pride? Certainly the indulgence of Londonderry, the Mitfords, and like minded spirits only helped empower monsters like Ludendorf and Hitler. They merely fed the beast(s).

    I think the real cancer was undiminished German militarism. It worked in 1866. It worked in 1870-71 (with enormous profits). It authored unification. It complemented industrialization (especially for firms like Krupp). Normal citizens weren’t in a position to question the General Staff’s reckless incompetence and criminal contempt for life (von Falkenhayn killed so many of his own men he should have been created chevalier de la Légion d’honneur).

    The German military did everything to conceal failure with ‘stab in the back’ theories and the like. Their malignant pride survived, even when troop numbers were reduced by Versailles. They merely outsourced their infection to paramilitaries like the Freikorps (later a fertile recruiting ground for some of the worst Nazi killers in the East). Weimar’s days were numbered from the start.

    So what other alternates were there in 1919?

    • The Roman option: invade Germany and lay waste to it’s cities and industries, destroy it’s capacity for war, occupy it for the duration. Aid a resurgence of normal industries and life after the deviant militarism has been exposed and discredited. There’s nothing like complete, utter defeat to expose failed policy and instill a ‘come to Jesus’ climate.
    -There wasn’t any stomach for this amongst the Allies or their constituents (understandably);

    • Co-option: enlist some higher spirit on the German General Staff (one that realizes/admits their mistakes) as an ally and try to stage-manage a face-saving transition to republican government free of military interference.
    -No such person comes to mind, but I’m no expert.
    -Any such person would have been quickly assassinated by any of several groups.

    • Appeal to justice: indict and try the authors of the calamitous WW1 campaign, including Wilhelm II , the General Staff, and any complicit civilian leadership; expose their criminality.
    -Unprecedented (as far as I know);
    -An option that would make most Allies very nervous;
    -Lacking the global network necessary for imposing economic sanctions or alternate enforcement unlikely to work without occupation (see the Roman option).

    • Enhanced treaty involvement: involve German negotiators (who take ownership) throughout the treaty formulation (rather than reading them the riot act at the end);
    - This would certainly have been worth a try;
    - Given the General Staff, it’s hard to say it would have made a difference, or that negotiators would have subsequently survived assassination.

    That’s the best I can do at the moment. I’m sure there’re better options by wiser minds.

    That traditional European enemies remain at peace as allies and partners now is truly remarkable. Even Jean Monnet might be surprised.

    A few more works I can recommend (sorry);

    • William Manchester: ‘The Arms of Krupp’
    -Excellent profile of a cardinal player in Germany’s 19-20C Military-Industrial complex (war was very, very good business. In 1926 Krupp even collected £40,000 from Vickers on patent royalties for shells that killed WW1 German troops. Warning, I’ve not purchased a single Krupp appliance since reading this book);

    • Margaret Bourke-White: ‘Dear Fatherland, Rest Quietly’
    -Out of print but possibly available on library networks; includes photos of what she found advancing with the troops entering Germany 1945. The text is direct and poignant (the Krupp family had the only bomb shelter in Essen);

    • Joseph Borkin: ‘The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben’
    -The company that could have have chosen to improve fertilizer and eliminate the need for ‘Lebensraum’ instead marketed and reaped a profit from Zyclone B (a patent purchased from Nobel laureate Fritz Haber, father of WW1 poison gas warfare).

    • ‘Downfall’
    -A film depicting the Hitler’s bunker in the last days of the Reich; reasonably accurate from all I’ve read. Not quite the Wagnerian finale Adolf might have desired (‘Rienzi’ was his favorite).

    • ‘Judgment at Nüremberg’
    -A film dramatization the trial of Nazi régime judges. Spencer Tracy’s last lines to Burt Lancaster (‘Ernst Janning’) are spot on.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  464. Barbara says:

    It is highly likely that Donovan knew, if not ordered Patton’s murder. This is just the first of many lives Donovan is responsible for. Donovan and the Dulles brothers had a tremendous amount of power behind -the-scenes.

  465. Sam Shama says:
    @Incitatus

    Hi Incitatus,
    Many thanks for spending the time to respond so meticulously to my previous post regarding Keynes’ entreaties at Versailles. I often yield to the temptation of couching many of my arguments with economics. Causes trouble occasionally.

    But you are so right, when one parses through the variety of options available at the time, the Allies made the very best of a difficult hand dealt at Versailles. Not least when the view pans Prussia/Germania’s internecine past.

    As I read through Shirer, especially the chapter devoted to Nazism’s [indeed contemporary Germany's] intellectual roots: Luther, Hegel, Nietzsche, von Trietschke, Gobineau and H.S. Chamberlain [this one had my eyebrows stuck north for a while!], I was struck by what can only be described as apprehension [surfeit of thoughts relating to that period and our present, I'm afraid]. I do so hope the Eurozone prospers intact.

    Do send additional references as you think appropriate. I am deeply in your debt.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  466. Incitatus says:

    Hi Sam,

    I’d forgotten about HS Chamberlain and had to look up his wikapedia page. Quite a package.

    Beware of Prussian tutors and spa visits. It seems to have led to unhappy outcomes.

    All the best

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  467. Rob McX says:

    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.

    Hmm….where did I hear that lately?

  468. Rudel says:
    @Quartermaster

    “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.

  469. Rudel says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “the idea of “Zionist controlled England” is a sign of something close to madness”

    Good point. It’s not as if, many years before, in the early 1800s, they were already fighting wars to protect the (((Sassoons’))) opium trade, or anything…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  470. Rudel says:
    @MarkinLA

    “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)))…

  471. Rudel says:
    @Avery

    “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.

  472. @Rudel

    Not I think up to the standard of which you are capable, albeit expressed with a light touch. The Sassoons couldn’t have been more remote from the Ashkenazi Zionists who anyway started their Zionist push long after the Opium Wars. Anyway, those wars required minimal exertion by the British state and if the state was overinfluenced it was surely by Scots (as in Jardine Matheson).

  473. @Sam Shama

    Sam – no need to buy the story that the Eurozone or even the EU is needed to preserve European peace. I’m surprised that a presumably numerate person doesn’t see why. Not so much contemporary productivity and the welfare state but plain demographics. In 1913 there were 2 million Germans born and 5 million Russians. If you know the current stats on ageing and on total fertility rates (compounded by late childbearing) you know all you need to know to calm your apprehensions.

  474. @Incitatus

    See #484 and please come back to UR.

  475. @Avery

    Why exaggerate? The Soviet Union knew that a second front in France was important and of course it was, and chewed up a lot of German resources, not least because of the western allies air power.

  476. anarchyst says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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…

  477. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @anonymous

    Mr. McGoo liberals

    Do you mind explaining that epithet?

    Mr. McGoo was a cartoon character from the 1950s. He was blind, and the jokes all had something to do with his mistaking one thing for another. At one time there was even a Mr. McGoo ride in Disneyland. But of course this is politically incorrect humor, and so has become completely forgotten.

    He could have written blind liberals.

  478. Anonym says:
    @The Alarmist

    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?”

    There would be less Trucks of Peace.

  479. Perhaps the best article on the predicament General Patton found himself in is here — https://nationalvanguard.org/2014/12/general-pattons-warning/ “General Patton’s Warning” by William Pierce

  480. No significance in this story, hovever sort of annectdotal : I have stood outside of the room in the US Army hosp in Heidelberg in which he passed Dec 1945.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

  481. Ragno says:
    @guest

    McCarthy had already been humiliated; he wouldn’t have been worth the trouble.

    Of course he would’ve been “worth the trouble” to American Marxists – take a look around at the species today, even more vengeful and sadistic peddlers of ideological scorched earth than their forebears ever were. (Of course, those forebears had to live with the uncomfortable possibility that the US might clean their clocks for them, here and abroad, which taught them discretion.)

    Their choosing an opportune moment to prevent any sort of second act for the Tailgunner makes a lot more sense than his dying of “alcoholism” at age 48….a death that raised little (allowable) suspicion and no investigations.

  482. Pat Tillman was the new Patton, got the same treatment.. We’ve been warned many times. The treason runs DEEP.. Don’t forget about what the Bolsheviks did to Christians in Russia, we’re approaching that type of situation.

    Nixon, Truman, and FDR’s Private Thoughts About Jews

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/08/30/nixon-truman-and-fdr%e2%80%99s-private-thoughts-about-jews/

    http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf

    Israel’s Mossad was a primary (and critical) behind the scenes player in the conspiracy that ended the life of JFK. Through its own vast resources and through its international contacts in the intelligence community and in organised crime, Israel had the means, it had the opportunity, and it had the motive to play a major frontline role in the crime of the century – and it did.”
    It was Piper’s assertion that Israel’s motive for the assassination was Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s outrage at JFK’s opposition to Israel becoming a nuclear power, and that in his final days as Prime Minister Ben-Gurion commanded the Mossad to become involved in a plot to kill America’s president. JFK’s assassination served the dual purpose of eliminating not only the threat to Israel’s nuclear ambitions, but also the need for the AZC to register as a foreign agent. So when Vice President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) was sworn in as JFK’s successor, he wasted no time in increasing Israel’s arms budget and also turned a blind eye to its nuclear arms development program. A further blow to the integrity and independence of the U.S. Senate occurred in November 1963, when Nicholas Katzenbach replaced RFK as Attorney General with the result that the AZC evaded registration and calculatingly morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that U.S.-based Israeli Mossad agents might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States.

    http://original.antiwar.com/alison-weir/2012/01/24/israeli-assassinations-and-american-presidents/

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html

    On Jan. 13 the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States.
    In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would need to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.”
    The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state “obliterate its enemies.”

    http://time.com/4711687/john-f-kennedy-diary-hitler/

    The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler’s bunker only months after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
    “You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived,” Kennedy wrote in his diary in 1945.
    “He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him,” he added. “He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
    “The room where Hitler is supposed to have met his death showed scorched walls and traces of fire,” he wrote. “There is no complete evidence, however, that the body that was found was Hitler’s body.” “The Russians doubt that he is dead,” Kennedy added.

    1962-63 period Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council (AZC). Fulbright — who lost his Senate seat the following year — had no qualms about boldly announcing on CBS Face the Nation that :
    “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. —somewhere around 80%— is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government.”

  483. @Anonymous

    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!

    The problem is that people have this idea that people in power will do the right thing if they recognize it… that is a bad idea to deceive yourself with…

  484. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:

    To find out what happened Patton, let’s look at the details of the accident here. Of supreme importance is the car Patton was in. Here’s a photo of it right after the accident:

    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-general-george-s-patton-car-accident-1945-129582153.html

    Here’s another view of this particular make and model of car Patton died in:

    http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-history-cop/2012/02/free-parking-for-general-pattons-staff-car-at-2012-chicago-auto-show/

    It’s a 1939 Model 75 Cadillac. It is not a Jeep. There was a technical sargent following behind Patton’s staff car in a vehicle which was indeed a Jeep. Why is this distinction important? Because it creates a fundamentally different picture of the accident. According to the telegraph article Ron links to, which is here:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html

    Target Patton claims the OSS agent, “Staged the car crash by getting a troop truck to plough into Patton’s Cadillac and then shot the general with a low-velocity projectile, which broke his neck while his fellow passengers escaped without a scratch.”

    Now take a look at this description of Patton’s death on this page: http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/general-george-s-patton-jr-death-final-days/

    “Neither driver was injured, and Gay received only slight bruises. Patton, on the other hand, although conscious, was bleeding profusely from head wounds received when he was thrown forward against the steel frame of the glass partition separating the front and rear seats and then backward again into his seat. There were, of course, no seat belts in those days, and whereas Gay and Woodring, having seen the oncoming truck, had braced themselves for the impact, Patton, who had been looking out the side window, had not. He knew he was seriously injured and apparently murmured, “I think I’m paralyzed,” and later, “This is a helluva way to die.”

    It was December 9th, a winter day, and Patton was riding in the back seat of a fancy green staff car with enclosed windows. There were no seatbelts, and Patton was looking sideways when the accident happened and had no warning it was about to occur. He was thrown forward with enough force that he cut his face on the glass and steel frame of the partition between the front and back seats, and then was whiplashed backwards.

    The second article says Patton had, “A fracture of the third cervical vertebra, with a posterior dislocation of the fourth cervical vertebra.” Which your head is turned sideways at the moment of impact, slams into a glass partition, and then is whiplashed backwards, that sounds about right for that type of injury.

    But there’s still a big problem with the claim that the neck injury was caused by a ‘low-velocity projectile.’

    Take a look at the Cadillac staff car again. It has glass windows all the way around. Anybody shooting at Patton at the exact moment the impact of the accident took place, would have had to be one heck of marksman to hit a moving body while Patton was being thrown forward and backwards. It’s always hardest to hit a moving target.

    Secondly, it would have to break a window to be able to hit Patton. But, according to Target Patton, it was a ‘low-velocity’ projectile. Okay, it would have had to smash a window and still retain enough force after that impact to break Patton’s neck in a way that didn’t look suspicious. Anything that retains enough force to kill somebody that way sounds like a regular bullet, which would have left a plainly visible entry wound. But it’s very likely any ‘low-velocity projectile’ would have ricocheted or deviated from its path because of contact with the glass of the window. There’s no way you can guarantee you can hit Patton if you have to shoot through something else with a weapon that is low-velocity, meaning it doesn’t have a lot of punch. You have to calculate to an extreme refinement all the forces involved, and they didn’t have that level of exactitude in shooting weapons back during World War II.

    And what sort of ‘low-velocity projectile’ could it have been? Projectiles like guns operate via explosions inside a barrel, which slams the bullet out with tremendous speed and force. How do you make this low velocity? You can slow speed if your projectile is very large, like a cannon ball, but it still takes massive explosive force to move it. This ‘low-velocity projectile’ would have in all probability stayed inside the vehicle after hitting Patton, and very likely would not have had enough force to exit through another window after hitting both the entry window and Patton, especially if it was low velocity to begin with. If anyone’s found any strange object inside the car with Patton, I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never heard anyone mention suspicious broken windows around the compartment Patton was riding in, either.

    Let’s look at this low-velocity projectile again. How do you make something hard enough to break a window and Patton’s neck without being deflected, yet make it ‘low-velocity?’ What was it, a sling-shot? Low-velocity means not much force could have thrown it. This is a basic law of physics. Besides, if a strange piece of shooting technology existed in 1945, we would have heard what it was by now.

    The physics involved with a ‘low-velocity projectile’ make no sense at all.

    Sorry Ron, the whole ‘Patton was assassinated’ thing sounds like a crock of nonsense, and it doesn’t hold up according the physical evidence of Patton’s death.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  485. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon

    Let’s look at this low-velocity projectile again. How do you make something hard enough to break a window and Patton’s neck without being deflected, yet make it ‘low-velocity?’ What was it, a sling-shot?

    Well, it’s been a couple of years since I read the book in question, and my memory is pretty fuzzy. But as I recall, the author claimed to have very thoroughly investigated all those sorts of physical issues, including an extended visit and detailed examination of the car and surviving physical evidence. I seem to remember that the window was allegedly down, perhaps having been jammed, and an incident had supposedly been arranged to reduce the car to a very slow speed.

    Unfortunately, I just can’t really attest to any of this. Why not just spend $8 buying the book and a day or two reading it, and then decide whether your objections remain valid?

    • Replies: @Anon
  486. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, for comparison, an arrow is a *much* slower projectile than pretty much any bullet, yet its penetrative power can be quite impressive:

    , though of course the aerodynamics are quite different. Here is a weird sort of OSS projectile:

    ; there were many others including actual bows, though I don’t know how much use any of them saw. Of course, that doesn’t answer the question of what happened to the projectile, though no doubt Wilcox takes some stab at this issue.

  487. @Avery

    Everybody said that Sputnik One in 1956 was a very primitive satellite, certainly compared to the US Explorer One which was launched only two years later and the Soviet Molniya which made a soft landing on the Moon on 31 January 1966 was nothing compared to all the successful US manned Apollo missions to the Moon in 1969, only three years later, in record time. So, yes, we are the greatest, and our made in China cellphones are better than their made in China cellphones.

  488. @Anonymous

    There are photographs of US astronauts on the Moon.

  489. Mr. Unz:

    I find it hard to believe that you have only been exposed to this information in the last 6 to 7 years. This information has been in play for decades. I know that I was first exposed to it about 30 years ago. I’m sure you would have considered the sources to be “conspiracy theories”, but when “conspiracy theories” are finally accepted, what do they become then? History? Not yet. There are still too many non-thinkers that are convinced that America is the good guy, and too many traitors that know it is the truth but can’t let it become History that will never allow the truth to be revealed until about two generations after the fact. It is like Schopenhauer’s quote:
    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

  490. ohmy says:
    @Anonymous

    To read a record of who FDR really was and, Truman too, one should read Major Jordan’s Diary, It’s available free of charge in PDf form on the net. Go through the first 150 pages, you will discover many interesting facts concerning Jews in our government who with the knowledge and consent of FDR facilitated the transfer to Stalin’s Russia, not only our nuclear research secrets from the Manhattan Project but enormous amounts of cash. What does it have to do with General Patton? You figure it out. Patton was a true Patriot. Not many like him today.

  491. @colm

    South Korea’s certainly had been. But the Americans knew this and prized their anti-Communism over what they might have been doing 5-10 years earlier.

  492. @George

    Controversial but they managed to keep Task Force Baum out of the newspapers, unlike the soldier-slapping incidents.

    • Replies: @Selfdo59
  493. My father fought in Patton’s army, crossing France and Germany into Czechoslovakia as Forward Artillery Observer and motorcycle messenger. He was convinced to the end of his life that Patton had been murdered. Given that he was near the scene of the crash very soon afterwards, and his role in carrying messages, I have no reason to doubt him.
    While I feel that Patton’s actions against the Bonus Army will forever blacken Patton’s soul, he deserved to be judged for his crimes, not executed to forward a set of slimy politicians.

  494. According to this article, “OSS Chief William Donovan had ordered the killing.” That’s true, but, ¿Who gave Donovan the order? Most likely the Rockefellers, who owned Donovan, a former Wall Street lawyer.

    The truth is that the CFR globalist conspirators already had decide to give Eastern Europe to Uncle Stalin, and Patton had smelled a rat and mentioned that he was going to quit the army and open an investigation. So, unknowingly, Patton had become a serious threat to the conspirators.

    International bankers profit from war, and they already had chosen a new enemy as substitute for Nazi Germany after the end of WWII: Soviet Russia. That’s why they created the Cold War out of nothing.

    These are the same people now frantically trying to revive the Russian bear to create a new Cold War or, if everything fails, even a Hot War.

  495. Selfdo59 says:
    @Avery

    Pure bunk.

    The Red Army was indeed “powerful” as any German fortunate enough to fight them on the “Ostfront” in 1945 (and survive) would attest. However, they were at the limits of their own manpower resources, with WOMEN and teenagers and 50+ y.o. men in front line combat units! Any men whom could walk and pick up a rifle were dragooned into the Soviet Army from the Eastern European countries they’d recently “liberated”, with, for example, TWO entire “Armies” of the “Polish Committe of National Liberation”, aka the “Lublin” government, established by the Soviets in July 1944 to counter the position of the then-extant Polish government-in-exile, which had never formally surrender after the German invasion in 1939. The Soviet military rolled on American Chevrolet,Dodge, and Studebaker trucks, fought with over 7,000 American-supplied M4 Sherman tanks, which they dubbed the “EmCha” (Russian literization of “M4″) and issued to their GUARDS Tank armies, flew American-made Bell P39s and P63 “Cobras” as ground attack aircraft, considered as good as their famed IL-2 “Flying Tank”, communicated with American-built radios and telephones, made armaments with American-supplied machine tools, many which are still used TODAY, ate American-produced food products (for some reason, they saw “Spam” as a DELICACY, which would indicate the sorry state of nutrition in the “Worker’s Paradise”), and treated their sick and wounded with American medical supplies and drugs. The Soviet Union was on the verge of economic collapse and hunger was widespread in 1945, they also had their own partisan troubles, namely, the so-called “Forest Brothers” whom fought on in the Baltic Republics and the Ukraine well into the 1950s. Many troops which otherwise would have been committed to the invasion of Manchuria in 1945 were instead used for the crop harvests, there was precious little food to feed them and that otherwise classic and lopsided victory in August 1945 was significantly hampered by terrible logistics problems – many Soviet tank units which brushed aside resistance of the Kwantung Army units with contemptuous ease found themselves stalled short of their objective due to running out of fuel!

    Patton’s assessment that his Third Army alone (likely he’d have accepted the service of German “co-belligerents”), and with relatively light casualties, would throw the Soviet Army back into their country in six weeks may have been more than mere hyperbole. The General was known for his bombast, sure, but he always DELIVERED. And, in spite of his handle, “Ol’ Blood and Guts” (which he secretly hated, but ever the publicity hound, did nothing to disclaim), any reasonable comparison of Seventh and Third Army casualty reports during his respective tenures, in light of the enemy forces he faced and the objectives ACHIEVED, would lead one to conclude that (1) his mantra that “speed” and “audacity” (“l’audace! ‘laudace! Toujours l’audace! ‘) SAVED lives was correct and (2) he was not at all profligate with the lives of his men, unlike, say, Grant, Haig, or Zhukov and Koniev.

    As for use of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: again, pure bunk. They were used as terror weapons to convince the Japanese leadership that further resistance was “few-tile” (as the fictional Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, StarFleet, would pronounce it when captured and used by the Borg), even though the Allies ended up giving in on the ONE thing that might have, a MONTH prior to the use of the bombs, persuaded them to surrender: they could decide for themselves whether to keep their Emperor, and Hirohito would not be put on trial for war crimes. A wartime tragedy that might have been averted, even though, if one considered how many Japanese CIVILIANS were barbecued in the most horrific air raid of history, the great raid by GEN Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay’s XX Army Air Force on Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945, which killed more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED. As for the potential of deterrence of the atomic bomb on Stalin: when coyly informed by Truman of the success of the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, Stalin seemed to all to be nonplussed…his operatives had already given him great details on the Manhattan project, without which they might have taken five to ten years more to develop their own atomic bomb! The device, nicknamed “Joe-1″ (RDS-1), was an identical copy of the “Fat Man” device tested at Trinity (the U-235 “gun type” was considered to not require testing, and save for a fortunate capture of more U-235 from a German U-boat in May 1945, would have used what little the US had on hand anyway!) and used at Nagasaki, even down to the radar fuses.

    We can well judge Patton since the Soviet position took 44 years longer (1989) to begin to collapse than he’d have liked as being “crazy”, but it did happen. In 1945, and soon thereafter, it was obvious that IF indeed a hot war had to be fought in Europe with the Soviets, the US had missed a golden opportunity, with not only the manpower and equipment, but more important, the LOGISTICS and the LEADERSHIP that would make the difference, to defeat them decisively and, as Patton boasted, with “damned few” casualties. His fear was that war was inevitable, it would take six years and cost SIX MILLION American lives. Fortunately he was wrong on this prognosis. Both the USA and the USSR may have been flush with victory in Europe, but there was still Japan to deal with, and the mood on both sides was to get that over with and go home. Thank goodness.

  496. Selfdo59 says:
    @Uebersetzer

    Though TF Baum was an UNAUTHORIZED and blatant attempt to use US personnel and resources to rescue his son-in-law, John Waters, from German captivity, it came in wake of being denied sufficient gasoline and artillery shells to break out of his bridgehead over the Rhine at Oppenheim; Allied supplies were going to FM Sir Bernard Law Montgomery’s 21st Army Group, most specifically the Canadian First Army and his own XXX Corps, which were trying to get across the Rhine at Arnhem in Holland (which finally fell on April 15, 1945) and to DeGaulle, whom was impatient to liberate Lorient and St. Nazaire back in France on the Atlantic coast, where the Germans still held out and maintained submarine bases. Indeed, GEN. “Big Bill” Simpson’s Ninth Army and Courtney Hodges First Army had effected the encirclement of the German Heeresgruppe “B” in the Ruhr and were racing across Germany with virtually no opposition, they were likewise halted at the Elbe when, with a relatively small amount of gasoline, they could have marched to Berlin and perhaps effected a linkup with the Soviets at Kustrin on the Oder instead of Torgau on the Elbe.

    Monty and DeGaulle were satisfying objectives with some degree of “politics” in mind: DeGaulle obviously wanted the German holdouts in France mopped up, and Churchill wanted the V2 rocket launch sites that were hammering London from Holland taken out. Patton was held back by logistical priorities from knocking the Germans out of the war in France in 1944 and from taking virtually the whole of their country in 1945 before the Soviets took their share, much of which we’d held for them until Potsdam.

    In fact, right at the end of the war, when the Soviets finally broke through in Silesia and were advancing upon Prague, which was already for all practical purposes in Czech hands, Patton’s 3rd Army was only 20 miles away and was held back under direct orders from Ike.

  497. Just a footnote as a result of watching a remarkably pedestrian 1995 TV film “Patton:A Genius for War”, a Lou Reda Production.

    There is not the slightest suggestion that he might have been murdered though his controversial suggestion that the postwar world should be divided between Britain and the US, leaving out the Soviet Union is mentioned. Indeed the narration leads to the natural conclusion that his career was completely washed up and that no one would take him seriously. Eisenhower is said to have relieved him of command of the 3rd Army and whatever position that gave him in Bavaria because he had defended his appointment of a lot of Nazis to important positions to an inquiring journalist by saying that they were just like Republicans and Democrats. (A pity Paul Bremer didn’t have occasion to say that). Nothing is said about future ambitions or any political campaign he might have been considering.

  498. M Edward says:

    Based on my own research Patton’s murder was ordered by Bolsheviks in the U.S. government.
    Franklin Roosevelt was a Jewish Bolshevik, Eisenhower was a Jewish crypto-Bolshevik.
    Roosevelt destroyed America by flooding the State Department and his administration with Jewish Bolsheviks.
    Patton was right about the Soviets. The American military should have laid waste the government and military of the USSR.
    Tens of millions of Europeans and Slavic peoples died to liberate a few million Jews.
    Wow, what a great plan, sacrifice 30 million people to save 3 million.
    Brilliant !
    Isn’t that proof positive that, not only was WWII about Jewish acquisition of power and control, but also about killing as many non-Jews as possible in the process ?
    Roosevelt, what an American hero…… NOT !
    F’ing disgusting !

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.