Mystery 'poison plot' sends Czech mayors into hiding
FDR and the likes of Harry Hopkins would have been appalled to think that the Czechs would one day tear down this monument.
This is tearing down a so called WINNER of WWII!
Tear this down, and you might just as well move on to FDR, who cut the deal with Uncle Joe, and especially Eisenhower, who never fought a battle, and who refused to protect their pathetic asses in Eastern Europe when he had the chance, and had the largest modern army in history there on the ground and under Patton and Montgomery!
Czechs: "FDR didn't free us, you bitch! He freed Stalin!"
"Just like Wilson had freed Lenin, you bitches!"
My suggestion is that any politician who plans to tear down historic monuments, anywhere, should prepare to be poisoned or otherwise killed by outraged citizens, or enraged foreigners, some of whom still have a sense for history as they see it.
And if that starts a war, say between the Czechs and the Russians, then so be it.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
RE WHO WAS MORE DERANGED PATTON OR EISENHOWER
It has come out, over the years that the OSS, at the highest level, collaborated with Russia to remove and then to kill Patton. The Americans themselves seem to have carried out this murder, although the details are shrouded in almost as much confusion as the JFK assassination.
The explanation given to Bazata by Donovan was that he was dangerous and deranged.
Drew Pearson was the slut patsy chosen by the OSS to convey this false story, couched appealingly in the Jewish private slapping story, (who was ill but nobody knew that or cared) to the eager libertarian American public.
One obvious question: Who was more dangerous and deranged? Patton or Eisenhower?
Patton had begged Eisenhower to take Berlin, and other Eastern European capitols. So, it seems, had Montgomery to his superiors.
Eisenhower saw no use in taking Berlin, or any other place over there.
So, was Montgomery deranged too?
What has any of that, really, frankly, to do with slapping an ill Jewish, yellow belly, Army, Drew Pearson bait, buck private?
Let's change tack, for a moment. Call it a pivot!
Why would you collaborate with the Soviets re Europe, killing Patton, giving Eastern Europe to them, when they had just, just rammed Japan all the way up your ass in the Pacific, resulting in a terrible life and death struggle in Asia?
What rational person would do that?
Let's change tack: whom do you, only now, believe less:
The NYT in 1964 re Kitty Genovese?
or
Drew Pearson in say 1944, re Patton?
Pearson was no more, and no less, self centered and unscrupulous, in 1944, and it would be really hard to ever be more self centered or unscrupulous than he, than the NYT had been in 1937, or 1964, or 2016.
Jefferson, also, re self centered and unscrupulous, had talked a good talk, Declaration of Independence, etc.
But he had kept his own slaves to the end, baby!
Terms search: pivot
Sunday, November 12, 2017
REPRISE EISENHOWER PATTON VERDICT OF HISTORY
(Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '
'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.
Friday, July 25, 2014
RE GAME OVER SIMILAR POINT MONTGOMERY LATER MADE PATTON PATTERSON EISENHOWER
See the discussion between Patton and Under Secretary of War Patterson, May 7 1945, The Patton Papers 1940-1945, p. 697.
If you happen to read this passage, then ask yourself: 'Whom do I believe, Patterson or Patton?'
See prior post, re whether to take Berlin, Patton Eisenhower.
See also: Drew Pearson
My favorite, so far, is Jack Anderson (Pearson's partner), on Pearson, on Forrestal's death.
See also especially Soviet Japanese Neutrality Pact 1941.
If you happen to read this passage, then ask yourself: 'Whom do I believe, Patterson or Patton?'
See prior post, re whether to take Berlin, Patton Eisenhower.
See also: Drew Pearson
My favorite, so far, is Jack Anderson (Pearson's partner), on Pearson, on Forrestal's death.
See also especially Soviet Japanese Neutrality Pact 1941.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
PRIOR POSTS RE MONTGOMERY PATTON
Perhaps someone doesn't believe me about Montgomery.
They think only that Patton must have been deranged.
RE ROSENBERG EXONERATION EFFORT
RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957:
"Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."
They think only that Patton must have been deranged.
RE ROSENBERG EXONERATION EFFORT
RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957:
"Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."
Sunday, September 8, 2013
SEE DK'S CURRENT POST WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THE WORLD
He cites Reagan's regime.
"When the Cold War came to an end, we had a President who had fought in the Second World War, and he tried to use the end of the Cold War to create exactly the kind of world he had fought to create."
Here is another voice, speaking for the world really, from farther back, re the outcome of WWII, in retrospect:
"By May 1945 we had won the German war militarily, but had lost it politically vis-à-vis Russia." Montgomery, An Approach To Sanity, "NATO--- Past Present and Future", 1959, p. 12.
Largely because of American ideological opposition, we failed to drive the Russians back to their own borders, something which, even in this 1959 volume, Montgomery expressly wished might some day happen...
Reagan was not in the same league with these people.
Eisenhower had no battlefield experience, ever. Think about it.
If there was a so called ' betrayal ' in the Second WW,
(a la Hitler's erroneous allegations against the financiers and politicians, unfounded in the case of Germany, re the First World War),
and vaguely alluded to by Montgomery, back then, regarding a war politically rather than militarily lost, it was the betrayal, by the United States, of views like those of Patton, and perhaps, even, of his demise.
"When the Cold War came to an end, we had a President who had fought in the Second World War, and he tried to use the end of the Cold War to create exactly the kind of world he had fought to create."
Here is another voice, speaking for the world really, from farther back, re the outcome of WWII, in retrospect:
"By May 1945 we had won the German war militarily, but had lost it politically vis-à-vis Russia." Montgomery, An Approach To Sanity, "NATO--- Past Present and Future", 1959, p. 12.
Largely because of American ideological opposition, we failed to drive the Russians back to their own borders, something which, even in this 1959 volume, Montgomery expressly wished might some day happen...
Reagan was not in the same league with these people.
Eisenhower had no battlefield experience, ever. Think about it.
If there was a so called ' betrayal ' in the Second WW,
(a la Hitler's erroneous allegations against the financiers and politicians, unfounded in the case of Germany, re the First World War),
and vaguely alluded to by Montgomery, back then, regarding a war politically rather than militarily lost, it was the betrayal, by the United States, of views like those of Patton, and perhaps, even, of his demise.
Friday, September 27, 2019
RE DK POST TRUMP'S REAL ANALOG AND COMMENTS THERE
I have gotten a copy of Stalin's Secret Agents. It is a reprise, but also a reinterpretation of earlier disclosures regarding Soviet penetration.
Especially interesting re the back and forth w DK re Trump's Real Analog post comments.
One even has to distinguish between mere communist fellow travellers, of whom there were the most, from spies who usually doubled as agents of influence in official positions, of whom there were dozens everywhere which formed a strategic corp really.
These are more important distinctions than one might think.
The Soviets actually took down our State Department block by block from within our own government regarding anti Soviet views there. See Evans, Romerstein, Ch 19. Kennan complained bitterly about it in his Memoirs. They cite to his remarks there.
There is a note, a footnote, in Ch 19 re Drew Pearson's aggressive crusades in these pro soviet initiatives.
Professor Kaiser has lavishly praised Pearson, a pro Soviet journalist, on his blog.
Pearson took down Patton, probably on orders through David Karr. Does it not raise a question?
There is a great irony here, re Trump's pathetic and ostensibly impeacheable efforts to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor ostensibly adverse to Moscow.
How paltry and pathetic by comparison with what was done to us, from within, by the Soviets for most of the 20th Century.
Professor Kaiser has lavishly praised Pearson, a pro Soviet journalist, on his blog.
Pearson took down Patton, probably on orders through David Karr. Does it not raise a question?
There is a great irony here, re Trump's pathetic and ostensibly impeacheable efforts to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor ostensibly adverse to Moscow.
How paltry and pathetic by comparison with what was done to us, from within, by the Soviets for most of the 20th Century.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957
"Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."
At The Casablanca Conference, where Roosevelt announced unconditional surrender, at Morgenthau's instance and under the influence at that time of Russian agents in Treasury, Stalin did not even have to attend.
As Montgomery noted, it suited his plans to the letter...
Call it: "The Roosevelt Morgenthau" decision, or even more accurately, The Roosevelt Moscow Accord, and its aftermath.
Churchill had to go along, or lose so called allies he could not then do without.
I say ' so called ' because not only was the USSR clearly planning to absorb as much of Western and eastern Europe and the Middle East as they could, with active US collusion, but they were also colluding simultaneously with Japan re a secret nonaggression pact, enabling Japan's attack on Western and on American targets in Asia, especially Pearl Harbor.
Morgenthau had arranged for Patton's dismissal, with the help of the willing muckraking tool, Drew Pearson.
At The Casablanca Conference, where Roosevelt announced unconditional surrender, at Morgenthau's instance and under the influence at that time of Russian agents in Treasury, Stalin did not even have to attend.
As Montgomery noted, it suited his plans to the letter...
Call it: "The Roosevelt Morgenthau" decision, or even more accurately, The Roosevelt Moscow Accord, and its aftermath.
Churchill had to go along, or lose so called allies he could not then do without.
I say ' so called ' because not only was the USSR clearly planning to absorb as much of Western and eastern Europe and the Middle East as they could, with active US collusion, but they were also colluding simultaneously with Japan re a secret nonaggression pact, enabling Japan's attack on Western and on American targets in Asia, especially Pearl Harbor.
Morgenthau had arranged for Patton's dismissal, with the help of the willing muckraking tool, Drew Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment