United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders claims new book
Source:
telegraph.co.uk
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor ... r-leaders-claims-new-book.html
Published: May 29, 2011
Author: Tim Shipman
Post Date: 2011-05-29 04:21:46 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 9318
Comments: 19
George S. Patton, America's greatest combat general of the Second World War, was assassinated after the conflict with the connivance of US leaders, according to a new book. The newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives. The death of General Patton in December 1945, is one of the enduring mysteries of the war era. Although he had suffered serious injuries in a car crash in Manheim, he was thought to be recovering and was on the verge of flying home. But after a decade-long investigation, military historian Robert Wilcox claims that OSS head General "Wild Bill" Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman called Douglas Bazata to silence Patton, who gloried in the nickname "Old Blood and Guts". His book, "Target Patton", contains interviews with Mr Bazata, who died in 1999, and extracts from his diaries, detailing how he 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. Mr Bazata also suggested that when Patton began to recover from his injuries, US officials turned a blind eye as agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, poisoned the general. Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph that when he spoke to Mr Bazata: "He was struggling with himself, all these killings he had done. He confessed to me that he had caused the accident, that he was ordered to do so by Wild Bill Donovan. "Donovan told him: 'We've got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he's out of control and we must save him from himself and from ruining everything the allies have done.' I believe Douglas Bazata. He's a sterling guy." Mr Bazata led an extraordinary life. He was a member of the Jedburghs, the elite unit who parachuted into France to help organise the Resistance in the run up to D-Day in 1944. He earned four purple hearts, a Distinguished Service Cross and the French Croix de Guerre three times over for his efforts. After the war he became a celebrated artist who enjoyed the patronage of Princess Grace of Monaco and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. He was friends with Salvador Dali, who painted a portrait of Bazata as Don Quixote. He ended his career as an aide to President Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. Mr Wilcox also tracked down and interviewed Stephen Skubik, an officer in the Counter-Intelligence Corps of the US Army, who said he learnt that Patton was on Stalin's death list. Skubik repeatedly alerted Donovan, who simply had him sent back to the US. "You have two strong witnesses here," Mr Wilcox said. "The evidence is that the Russians finished the job." The scenario sounds far fetched but Mr Wilcox has assembled a compelling case that US officials had something to hide. At least five documents relating to the car accident have been removed from US archives. The driver of the truck was whisked away to London before he could be questioned and no autopsy was performed on Patton's body. With the help of a Cadillac expert from Detroit, Mr Wilcox has proved that the car on display in the Patton museum at Fort Knox is not the one Patton was driving. "That is a cover-up," Mr Wilcox said. George Patton, a dynamic controversialist who wore ivory-handled revolvers on each hip and was the subject of an Oscar winning film starring George C. Scott, commanded the US 3rd Army, which cut a swathe through France after D-Day. But his ambition to get to Berlin before Soviet forces was thwarted by supreme allied commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, who gave Patton's petrol supplies to the more cautious British General Bernard Montgomery. Patton, who distrusted the Russians, believed Eisenhower wrongly prevented him closing the so-called Falaise Gap in the autumn of 1944, allowing hundreds of thousands of German troops to escape to fight again,. This led to the deaths of thousands of Americans during their winter counter-offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge. In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war. Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph: "Patton was going to resign from the Army. He wanted to go to war with the Russians. The administration thought he was nuts. "He also knew secrets of the war which would have ruined careers. I don't think Dwight Eisenhower would ever have been elected president if Patton had lived to say the things he wanted to say." Mr Wilcox added: "I think there's enough evidence here that if I were to go to a grand jury I could probably get an indictment, but perhaps not a conviction." Charles Province, President of the George S. Patton Historical Society, said he hopes the book will lead to definitive proof of the plot being uncovered. He said: "There were a lot of people who were pretty damn glad that Patton died. He was going to really open the door on a lot of things that they screwed up over there."
'We've got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he's out of control and we must save him from himself'. The OSS head General did not trust Patton
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Maybe Patton was ended because he knew too much about this, Chapter 10: GATEWAY TO THE BLACK SUN: CONCLUSIONS TO PART ONE [Joseph P Farrell] In retrospect, then, the secrecy surrounding the German project seems all too clear, for the best source of cheap labor lay in the death camps, camps that Hitler desired to keep secret from the German people, for obvious reasons. By early 1941 Farben had already begun construction of its "Buna plant" at Auschwitz. And there was more probably lurking in Hitler's twisted mind: before the war, some scientists in the Reich had spelled out the basic idea behind a weapon even more powerful than the atom bomb, for which the latter was but a fuse. Hitler, on this view, ever the gambler, too the risk, confident of being in the possession of a fearful arsenal within a short span of two to three years, and declared war on the United States. So too the military deployments and operations of the European war's end that made little sense before now begin to take on an operational logic that is almost irresistible. The madcap, and some would say, militarily and politically indefensible, Allied dash away from Berlin and to south central Germany and Prague are consistent with American knowledge, at some very high level, of Kammler's SS Sonderkommando black projects and secret weapons empire. Hitler's own obsession with the defense of Breslau in lower Silesia and of Prague itself, an obsession that made no sense to his generals, make military sense only in the context of an atom bomb and intercontinental rocket project that was successful in the attainment of the first and perilously close to the attainment of the second. Similarly, Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler's offer of a surrender to the Western Allies has usually been dismissed as the frantic attempts of a desperate mass murderer to avoid his inevitable fate, and nothing more. But Himmler, like Hitler, and possibly only Martin Bormann, was one of the "inmost circle" who knew the full extent of Kammler's empire and its actual activities Himmler may have therefore used this knowledge as a possible bargaining chip. His offer was rejected, not so much because it was not genuine (from Himmler's point of view), but because he had long lost genuine control of it. The deal had already probably been cut between Kammler's representatives and OSS station chief in Zurich, Allen Dulles, or via General Patton himself. Bormann, too as we have seen, was implicated in this plot, and, as we shall see in subsequent chapters, is directly linked to Kammler. The thesis of an actual German atom bomb also explains the odd little events that began to surface in scattered Allied press reports toward and immediately after the end of the European War long-range heavy lift round trip "proof of concept" flights from Europe to within sight of New York City, Luftwaffe maps of Manhattan with blast damage estimates for an atom bomb of the same approximate yield as Hiroshima, a Norwegian airfield filled with over forty long range bombers capable of making the flight, "Buna plants" that incomprehensibly use more electricity than Berlin and paradoxically produce no rubber during the entire course of the war, U-boats loaded with infrared fuses - a device whose technical complexity betokens an immediate nuclear application -and enriched uranium powder ready for metallization. Likewise, this thesis provides a more plausible explanation, for those inclined to think it suspicious, for the mysterious death of America's most celebrated and famous, and for the equally impossible "triple death" of Germany's most sinister, generals. Patton, as was seen, was the commander of the very America army entrusted with seizing the mother-load of secret weapons research treasures in Thuringia and at Pilsen in Czechoslovakia. He, at the top of the Third Army's command structure, would have been privy to all the first intelligence reports of his units entering those areas, and would easily have been the first man outside Kammler himself to see enough of the pieces to put together a reasonable picture of the whole. If indeed Patton was deliberately silenced, and I am by no means convinced that he was, then surely this is the most plausible motivation for the deed. And finally, as was seen, a successful German atom bomb project might very well me the inner moral logic at work in the German Resistance's bomb plot against Adolf Hitler in July of 1944. Similarly, the thesis puts on a firmer foundation another set of "oddities," such as the ludicrous notion that the Allied engineers were so confident that their design for the Little Boy uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima was so good it did not need to be tested, or (in another explanation), that there was not enough weapons grade uranium to build two such bombs to test one before dropping the other. That the US military would have dropped an untested super-weapon on an enemy city, an enemy known to be working on acquiring the very same weapon, is simply ridiculous in the extreme. The Allied Legend is made even more ridiculous when one considers the fact that the plutonium bomb had been successfully tested, and that a plutonium bomb was already ready for deployment against the Japanese. Why then was the "untested" Little Boy dropped first, instead of the plutonium "Fat Man"? A rational explanation is afforded by the thesis of this part of the book: Little Boy was not tested by the Americans because, as Oppenheimer hinted, the bomb was "of German provenance." The Americans did not need to test it, because its German designers already had.
This makes more sense than the given reason for the assasination which has been a suspition of many for a long time. If we ever get a nuclear bomb exploding in a major city, the reaction will make the Patriot act look like an increase in parking fines too I migh add. Which is how Iran could win a lot with a couple of devices. If they made us panic so much we took our own freedoms away, it would be worth doing to them.
Sounds like you now support the patriot act. Since Obama signed it. Oh wait he didn't sign it. So truthfully it is expired.
Fuck off. I don't agree with everything Obama does. As for it expiring, it hasn't. In any event, I have never supported it and still don't.
The constitution says the president has to sign a bill to become law. He didn't sign it? What if Sasha signed it for him instead of the machine. Would that be ok too?
That has nothing to do with my post. Are you asking me my opinion on the way he signed the Patriot act extension? We also used to dip quill pens in ink bottles and scratch out our words and signatures on hemp paper. So is everything no written on pulp paper with modern pens illegal? Are you saying new technology can't make him move pens remotely? Perhaps we should ban copy machine too, ir not agree with anything not chiseled into rock slabs like on the Flintstones. And anyone signing on line with a digital signature should get a ride on a dunking stool for not being faithful to quill pens and ink bottles.
The constitution makes no reference to pulp of paper or what it is signed with. It just says the president has to sign it for it to be law. Pretty straightforward. Why do you try to twist simple words?
Then by your own words you are arguing form, not function. The autopen was used because a 2005 Justice Department memo that concluded "the president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it." The Constitution insists on signature as the form the function of showing intent to see a bill become law. And in every aspect of American culture people sign for others under the direction of another to show the intent of that person. If the 200 year old autopen that even worked for Jefferson as a labor saving device to help people sign by proxy has a history as an accepted tool for this sort of thing, then how this bill was sign is fine with me too. Have a digital form of the bill brought into being by regulation to deal with logistical problems like the President being traveling as is the reason for this use of proxy. I have no argument with a discussion of the form a signing of a bill should take. But a bill signing should not be grounds to force a president not to do his or her job. If people want to have a voice in how this is done, that is a good thing. That is not an issue. It's fine to figure out this logistical detail. It isn't fine to question the intent of the president to sign when that is clear that this intent is real and formed. We could also go back to rings and leaving prints in sealing wax too. But of course that would be as silly as you making a mountain out of the mole hill of how adaptable society is at getting things done in a legal, yet efficient manner of doing things. What did you want, Stone, an expensive flying of that piece of paper to and from the president just to do the signing in the way you feel most comfortable with? When I was Charge of Quarters (CQ) as an NCO in the Army -- a function of taking turns to be in charge of a military unit by proxy, I signed more than once as 'SSG Mike McCarthy for Major chose a last name.' And I have signed documents digitally on line. The main problen here is is you warping the situation out of proportion based on your extreme hatred of this man. That is your problem. Figure out the best form a signature should be done in and advocate for it. I don't like the Patriot Act and am disgusted it was passed and signed into law. But I am not going to joust the windmill over how the practice of signing things has changed over the past few hundred years.
Really? It's 200 years old? I learn something new every day. Thanks.
#15. To: Fred Mertz (#14)
The first autopens were developed by an Englishman named John Isaac Hawkins. Hawkins received a United States patent for his device in 1803. In 1804, Thomas Jefferson began using the device extensively.[1] This early device was known at the time as a polygraph (an abstracted version of the pantograph) and bears little resemblance to today's autopens in design or operation.[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen No problem. It's always nice when we find an example of our ancestors being smarter than we gave them credit for, isn't it?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Parrot with speed dial (#1)
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
Fuck off. I don't agree with everything Obama does. As for it expiring, it hasn't. In any event, I have never supported it and still don't.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
#12. To: Ferret Mike (#10)
So is everything no written on pulp paper with modern pens illegal?
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
(Edited)
"It just says the president has to sign it for it to be law. Pretty straightforward."
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
If the 200 year old autopen that even Jefferson used as a labor saving device, then that is fine with me.
Replies to Comment # 14. History
U.S. government employees operate a check-signing machine.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]