PDA

View Full Version : Target: Patton



Washout
01-16-2013, 06:31 AM
I heard of this book when it first came out but wasn't interested for a few years (even though I have been convinced for some time that Patton was murdered, and even wrote a paper on my theory for a junior college COM class) because I fell for a negative review. At any rate, one day I was in the bookstore looking for a book about WW2 that looked interesting to me, and that I hadn't already read, and I decided to give Target: Patton a read, if for nothing else than to pick out and lament the weaknesses. I expected it to be an awful book, typical conspiracy theory nonsense, but it turned out to be a fantastic read and was clearly the product of a dedicated, honest, and exhaustive investigation

Of course, there are weaknesses, but those are due to the investigation by this particular author only commencing around the year 2000, when most of the players were dead, but the historical back story is 100% solid.

If anyone of you should pass by this one in Books A Million, I would very strongly urge you to pick it up and read Chapter 19: Problem Child, as well as Chapter 14: A Soldier, Not a Diplomat. Both chapters could stand alone as articles in Historical Journals, and will not screw you up if you read the whole book in order afterwards.

thanks

JR*
01-16-2013, 06:45 AM
Who wrote it ? I know I could probably find comprehensive references on the Internet, but something I was taught at university is that when it comes to secondary sources, historians should have regard to references like author's name (acknowledgement of which, btw, the author is legally entitled), the index, and stuff like that. Best regards, JR.

Washout
01-17-2013, 05:38 AM
Who wrote it ? I know I could probably find comprehensive references on the Internet, but something I was taught at university is that when it comes to secondary sources, historians should have regard to references like author's name (acknowledgement of which, btw, the author is legally entitled), the index, and stuff like that. Best regards, JR.

Derrrr... forgot to list the Author. Robert K. Wilcox


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa310/melorkis/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1111_zpse5cc1180.jpg

Nickdfresh
01-17-2013, 06:30 AM
A lot of the "got'cha" evidence the books purportedly sets forth doesn't seem to be all that controversial under scrutiny. If you read Band of Brothers, or just watch the last episode of the miniseries, you'll see that a fair number of Army personnel were dying in "accidents" after WWII, and collisions with Army trucks was nothing that was particularly unusual. Also, the "without an autopsy" factoid really doesn't mean anything, as someone who dies in the presence of a doctor is not required to have one IIRC.

I believe Patton was about to be sent home anyways...

The book also defames "Wild Bill" Donovan while lionizing Patton as an outspoken conservative. I think Wild Bill also was quite conservative and was a self made multimillionaire on Wall St. and Congressional Medal of Honor winner...

Washout
01-17-2013, 06:45 AM
Nick I love the adolescent smugness with which you summarize books you have never read. And Patton was indeed going home, and was actually hurt in the car accident the very day before he was leaving. Furthermore Patton was not retiring but resigning from the Army and he was planning to speak out re: corruption within SHAEF and expose what the Russians were really up to in Europe. He was resigning so that he could no longer be ordered to shut his mouth. So his death was either A) An extremely lucky accident for the Russians B)a plot to silence him.

But yeah, it's ludicrous to believe that Stalin would ever plot to have anyone killed, right?

Nickdfresh
01-17-2013, 06:56 AM
Nick I love the adolescent smugness with which you summarize books you have never read.

"My adolescent smugness?" Um. okay. I'm not one to pull rank, but you're talking to a moderator, my friend from the "masturbatory"...

You're trolling and it is getting old and seems to have run its course...

But we'll play along for a bit longer...


And Patton was indeed going home, and was actually hurt in the car accident the very day before he was leaving. Furthermore Patton was not retiring but resigning from the Army and he was planning to speak out re: corruption within SHAEF and expose what the Russians were really up to in Europe. He was resigning so that he could no longer be ordered to shut his mouth. So his death was either A) An extremely lucky accident for the Russians B)a plot to silence him.

But yeah, it's ludicrous to believe that Stalin would ever plot to have anyone killed, right?

"Resigning?" Really? Then why didn't he do it sooner? Why wait so long to "expose corruption?" He had been promoted to Full General, and was beloved by many within the command even if he was a ticky pain-in-the-***...

Secondly, Patton was involved in a few controversies of his own, not least of which the shoddy, if understandable under the circumstances, treatment of German POWs under his command. I haven't read the book, but it seems to be based on two crank sources. And there are several crank books from WWII based on the testimony of guys who were there...

Thirdly, why do you keep solely reading these conspiracy books rather than just reading some of the highly rated biographies of Patton? Why is everything some Red Conspiracy?

What book on WWII have you read that isn't some fringe conspiracy work? I'll be waiting for this answer, or I'll have to call "shenanigans" on this troll...

Washout
01-17-2013, 07:27 AM
More adolescent smugness^.

It is not in dispute that he was resigning and not retiring. It's in his diary, and each of his inner circle said the same thing. And why didn't he do it sooner? If you're actually curious, why don't you hmmmm, maybe find out for yourself? Read a book. Maybe venture outside of your comfortable box of thinking? I do, frequently, and in fact seek out what I do not agree with (such as right now I am reading a doorstopper which lauds Edward R. Murrow, who I consider to be a dishonorable weasel).

And I love how you tell me what I read and don't read. I have read over the last 20 years, literally over a hundred books on WW2 and that period (maybe over two hundred), everything from stuff like The Longest Day/ A bridge too far to entertaining, small picture stuff like Band of Brothers and A Blood Dimmed Tide. You cite Band of Brothers so often I wonder if you have read very many other books about WW2 at al. I read that one, too, at least a dozen years ago, and then I read the follow up about Winters specifically, The Biggest Brother a couple years ago. I have actually read just about everything written about Patton. Carlo D'Este's genius for War, Farago's Ordeal and Triumph, and also the Last Days of Patton as well as Charles M. Province's The Unknown Patton, even ones critical of him about the Hammelberg Raid and the War Between The Generals plus others which I'm sure I have forgotten

of course, for years I dismissed the Patton murder. His family dismissed it, and that was good enough for me. I put the issue to bed over a decade ago. But the issue just wouldn't stay asleep as the more I studied the more plausible it seemed, and as I became curious about Patton, specifically, and began reading in depth I became satisfied that he was murdered, long before I ever bothered reading Target Patton.

And there's more. I have also spoken to WW2 vets at some length, for years, including a good friend of mine who I hesitate to name because I never got the chance to interview him at depth before he died. But anyway he was a paratrooper in WW2, went on to fight in Korea and in Vietnam as a Special Forces Colonel, and was even the first commander of the Army's HALO school as well as working with CIA and spooks. He was not a crank or a fool, and he was more sure than I am that Patton was assassinated, as are many, many savvy old military retirees.

tankgeezer
01-17-2013, 07:41 AM
Would a large percentage of these "books" be Sgt. Rock, Weird War, or perhaps (in honor of Gen. Patton) Haunted Tank Graphic Novels? Your Diatribes seem rather comic book grade, to me at least. I would also caution you against sassing any member, rude, behavior is against forum rules. And sassing a Moderator is never a good idea. You may have the Right to speak, but you do not have the Right to be heard. In order to be heard, one must say something worth listening to.

Nickdfresh
01-17-2013, 07:54 AM
...
And I love how you tell me what I read and don't read. I have read over the last 20 years, literally over a hundred books on WW2....

Then why don't you know anything? I've never seen an avid reader on history present such amateurish opinions....

Rising Sun*
01-17-2013, 08:01 AM
No doubt a thumping good read, in the tradition of Erich von Daniken's 'Chariots of the Gods' and sundry 'Churchill knew about / caused / planned Pearl Harbor to bring America into the war" books and articles. If one suspends disbelief while reading. And knows nothing about relevant historical facts.

An inconveniently contrary but internet accessible view on Patton's death is at, among other places which foolishly examine facts rather than flimsy supposition generated to help sales of polemical or just plain silly books, http://www.heroesatmargraten.com/the-death-of-general-george-s-patton.html

Nonetheless, I'm always willing to be persuaded that implausible or improbable historical interpretations are correct, in the same way that I'm willing to consider incontrovertible evidence that sub-normal hillbillies are plucked out of their pickup trucks on lonely roads at night and spirited away to a space ship where super-advanced aliens agonisingly expose and inspect all their internal organs, before courteously depositing them back in their truck without leaving any sign of surgical intrusion.

Some good points to start to persuade me that Patton was murdered would be:
1. To identify the Soviet agents who poisoned Patton;
2: To explain how they did it when Patton was surrounded by the best American medical staff available; and
3. To explain how they did it in an American military hospital.

Oh, and to explain the inconvenient fact that the OSS was disbanded at the beginning of October 1945, more than two months before Patton's traffic collision, which makes it rather difficult to maintain the claim by the self-proclaimed and incompetent assassin that he was ordered by 'Wild' Bill Donovan of OSS to murder Patton.

Then again, I suppose the facts that no autopsy was performed on Patton or Roosevelt http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/f2d31ce4c3.jpg are conclusive proof that the Soviet spymasters had complete control of everything in pursuit of their evil domination of the USA.

After all, if autopsies were performed on either of them, evidence would have emerged of how the Soviets had used aliens to implant control devices in their brains, without surgery.

Anyway, lest anyone doubt the credentials of author Wilcox as a historian of rare ability, his credentials are displayed on his website robertkwilcox.com where his impressive discoveries include solving the mystery of the shroud of Turin and revealing, to the astonishment of those of us who despite wide study deluded ourselves that Japan never got near to developing a nuclear weapon:


Japan's Secret War (1985):

Japan's race against time to build it's own Atomic Bomb. This is a groundbreaking look at one of the least known and most astonishing episodes of World War II. Japan's race to develop its own Atomic weapon.

Laurance McQuillan of the UPI: "In a fascinating look at what might have been, Robert Wilcox details just how close Japan came to successfully building an atomic bomb of its own and radically altering world history."

And there I was thinking that, if Japan was engaged in a hundred yard race with the US or even Germany to develop an atomic weapon, it couldn't even make the first yard before the other competitors had finished their race.

Rising Sun*
01-17-2013, 08:06 AM
Furthermore Patton was ... expose what the Russians were really up to in Europe.

Yeah, that would have been a revelation of stunning cosmic insight to the Western leaders and their populations who before, during and after the war were alarmed by the potential for communism to spread.

Rising Sun*
01-17-2013, 08:09 AM
So his death was either A) An extremely lucky accident for the Russians ...

Why?

Patton had no power to do anything that affected them, and no knowledge that anyone opposed to the Soviets didn't have.

Rising Sun*
01-17-2013, 08:11 AM
So his death was ... A) An extremely lucky accident for the Russians

Bit of a problem here, old sport.

Your hero Wilcox says that the Soviets poisoned Patton when the incompetent assassin ordered to kill him by the non-existent OSS failed.

That's hardly an accident, is it?

Or is it time for you to escape the contradictions and idiocies in your argument by "Beam me up, Scotty?"

Rising Sun*
01-17-2013, 08:17 AM
Thirdly, why do you keep solely reading these conspiracy books ...

Those books are printed on special paper for the wankers who think the conspiracy theories make sense.

The paper is teflon coated. It stops the pages sticking together.

tankgeezer
01-17-2013, 09:45 AM
That's a very thoughtful Publisher.

Washout
01-18-2013, 06:15 AM
Indeed it is one hundred percent appropriate to disbelieve any conspiracy theory before you have researched it yourself, but none of you know one way or the other and yet you are very doggedly maintaining a position about which you have no knowledge. It is also perfectly appropriate to doubt the words from an anonymous, random internet poster -and you should. But do check for yourselves, please. I understand fully how one can see the Patton murder theory and deem it to be absurd without checking. In fact that's what I did at first, but unlike you guys I kept an open mind.

I'm sure you're all smart, and 90% of the time your knee jerk reaction to something turns out to be correct, but your knee jerk reaction should not close your mind forever.

Rising sun, if you would devote half as much time and brain power to research, investigation, and deduction as you do to trying to pose as a knowledgeable and thoughtful historian you might gain some perspective. Your pretentiousness, well practiced as it obviously is, does not fully camouflage your ignorance.

you are all making a mistake in believing that I am as ignorant as you are. None of you even has a rudimentary grasp of the actual situation on the ground in 1945 in Europe, and the sad part is that you probably never will unless they make a big budget movie about it. I love the way that you all break down books you have never read, and also how it seems your capacity to speak about this subject has no end, while your knowledge has no beginning.

Why doesn't a single one of you... read a book, or at least a chapter of a book, before running your mouths on the internet about it? I know, that's probably something you've never considered doing before. It is painfully obvious that the extent of your "research" in this case was to find a negative review online and rephrase it in your own words.


Oh, and to explain the inconvenient fact that the OSS was disbanded at the beginning of October 1945, more than two months before Patton's traffic collision, which makes it rather difficult to maintain the claim by the self-proclaimed and incompetent assassin that he was ordered by 'Wild' Bill Donovan of OSS to murder Patton. This betrays such shallow thinking that you should be embarrassed that it came out of your mouth.



Some good points to start to persuade me that Patton was murdered would be:
1. To identify the Soviet agents who poisoned Patton;
2: To explain how they did it when Patton was surrounded by the best American medical staff available; and
3. To explain how they did it in an American military hospital. Here's a novel idea: read Target Patton. What are you afraid of? If it's bunk, then have fun ripping it -and me- here in this thread for all to see.

Why?

Patton had no power to do anything that affected them, and no knowledge that anyone opposed to the Soviets didn't have. You have never read a single book about Patton, obviously. Have you ever read a book about WW2, period?

The problem with you guys is that you're all painting yourselves into a corner. You dont know what you're talking about, but you're not only insisting upon conclusions, but you are insulting those who offer a contrary view. Thus you have corrupted your own learning processes, for if you accept that there are good reasons to believe Patton was murdered, then you would suffer loss of face. You would be admitting that you were both smug and ignorant; it takes moxie to admit such a thing, and there is no reason to believe any of you has such character.

All I'm asking -nay begging- is for you to read Chapters 19 and Chapters 14. I know that's a lot to ask because its obvious that none of you are book readers. If it is not against copyright law, shit I'll transcribe them in their entirety in this thread. That way it will be in the only format you're comfortable reading: the internet

Rising Sun*
01-18-2013, 07:38 AM
...none of you know one way or the other and yet you are very doggedly maintaining a position about which you have no knowledge.

Have you noticed that that is exactly what you are doing?

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us

Robert Burns
To a Louse


Rising sun, if you would devote half as much time and brain power to research, investigation, and deduction as you do to trying to pose as a knowledgeable and thoughtful historian you might gain some perspective. Your pretentiousness, well practiced as it obviously is, does not fully camouflage your ignorance.

Ah, I do love the smell of a troll in the morning!

You'd be well advised not to be a troll much later in the day.

As a moderator, along with other moderators who have cautioned you, I suggest that you stop being silly and inflammatory to no purpose and instead present well reasoned and well supported arguments. This is a tolerant site, and much more so than most military history sites, but everyone has their limits. You are close to reaching yours.


you are all making a mistake in believing that I am as ignorant as you are.

I'm not.

The weight of knowledge by informed members presenting reasoned and well supported responses to your facile assertions, conspiracy theories, and reliance upon weak or nonsensical sources shows that you are ignorant of real evidence (i.e. accepted by rational people on the basis of considered evidence and notably primary sources and established facts), which does not support your assertion that they are ignorant.



None of you even has a rudimentary grasp of the actual situation on the ground in 1945 in Europe, and the sad part is that you probably never will unless they make a big budget movie about it. I love the way that you all break down books you have never read, and also how it seems your capacity to speak about this subject has no end, while your knowledge has no beginning.

Yeah, usual Debating 101 'distract the opponent and trail red herrings in the hope that the flaws in my hopeless position will be forgotten'.

How about responding with facts to the fact that Donovan couldn't have issued OSS orders for Patton's murder when OSS had been disbanded a couple of months earlier, and the other points I suggested might convince me of the correctness of your argument in my posts #10 to #13? I'd really appreciate just once in my years on this forum having somebody making preposterous claims actually responding factually to my factual challenges to them instead of trying to divert the discussion with the sort iof rrelevant trolling / conspiracy theory /ad hominen rubbish you've presented in your last post.


Why doesn't a single one of you... read a book, or at least a chapter of a book, before running your mouths on the internet about it?

It is evident that many other members have read many more than the one book you rely upon for your present fancy. Your problem is that you haven't.


I know, that's probably something you've never considered doing before. It is painfully obvious that the extent of your "research" in this case was to find a negative review online and rephrase it in your own words.

Okay, as the reader of all books on everything relevant to this issue, you are perfectly qualified as the inter-galactic authority on the topic to abandon your empty, flaming, trolling responses in your last post and to respond factually and rationally to the facts presented against your claims, and in particular mine at #10 - #13. So surprise everyone and do it, instead of spitting poison in every direction to no useful purpose in a historical discussion.

Or is it the usual case that trolls, conspiracy theorists and other troublemakers and nutjobs can't respond that way because the facts don't support their untenable positions, or because they lack relevant knowledge?



This betrays such shallow thinking that you should be embarrassed that it came out of your mouth.

So, instead of wasting a post insulting other members who have presented facts challenging your position, how about responding in a way that doesn't embarrass you by, as you have done so far, demonstrating your inability to respond to factual challenges with factual responses?


Here's a novel idea: read Target Patton. What are you afraid of? If it's bunk, then have fun ripping it -and me- here in this thread for all to see.
You have never read a single book about Patton, obviously. Have you ever read a book about WW2, period?

The problem with you guys is that you're all painting yourselves into a corner. You dont know what you're talking about, but you're not only insisting upon conclusions, but you are insulting those who offer a contrary view. Thus you have corrupted your own learning processes, for if you accept that there are good reasons to believe Patton was murdered, then you would suffer loss of face. You would be admitting that you were both smug and ignorant; it takes moxie to admit such a thing, and there is no reason to believe any of you has such character.

Unlike you, the rest of us have read rather more than just one poorly researched and historically flimsy book on Patton.

Frankly, after reading your last section in the quote above, I'm inclined to agree with other moderators who think that you contribute nothing to this forum apart from pointless polemics and useless disputation.

Think very carefully before you respond, because you risk joining a long list of other trolls, conspiracy theorists, and nutjobs who are no longer able to contribute their drivel to any serious and informed historical discussion on this forum, and it is the better for it.

JR*
01-18-2013, 09:16 AM
Usually I try to be tolerant - at least, until their hair grows out throught their jumpers - but why do we sometimes condescend to feed these creatures ? If they were half-informative, half-receptive to evidence, or even half-polite, it would be one thing but ... oh, I am just feeling ratty today. Blame it on the 'flu - we have a very nasty one here in the Emerald Isle at the moment. Wonder what the equivalent is in "The Masturbatory" ? On the other hand, I prefer not to think ... Yours from the Mercury Mine, JR.

Nickdfresh
01-18-2013, 12:14 PM
Usually I try to be tolerant - at least, until their hair grows out throught their jumpers - but why do we sometimes condescend to feed these creatures ? If they were half-informative, half-receptive to evidence, or even half-polite, it would be one thing but ... oh, I am just feeling ratty today. Blame it on the 'flu - we have a very nasty one here in the Emerald Isle at the moment. Wonder what the equivalent is in "The Masturbatory" ? On the other hand, I prefer not to think ... Yours from the Mercury Mine, JR.

Just got over the flu here JR*. It's pretty nasty in most of North America as well (worst pandemic in over a decade).

I guess we have a history of being sort of tolerant towards trolls that aren't overly abusive towards the site and don't threaten its security. I think you can search a poster here from long ago called "Iron Man," who had the unique ability to rile up our mostly British friends. He was also known as "Ironing Man" and a Tin Walt... :)

I think it has to do with giving a troll enough rope to snap their neck with and not being overly reactive, but to be honest there also seems to be a bit of sport involved as well...

Here's a link on how to troll!: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/IRONMAN

Washout
01-19-2013, 06:01 AM
If anyone is a troll here it's Rising Sun. His posts are the most vapid and desperately pretentious drivel I've ever seen. But I'll entertain him anyway


I'm not.

The weight of knowledge by informed members presenting reasoned and well supported responses to your facile assertions, conspiracy theories, and reliance upon weak or nonsensical sources shows that you are ignorant of real evidence (i.e. accepted by rational people on the basis of considered evidence and notably primary sources and established facts), which does not support your assertion that they are ignorant. As inflated as your language is, you offer very little in terms of information. I think that's because you don't posess much knowledge of what you're speaking about. I've listed, in this very thread, some of the books I've read about Patton specifically, and even mentioned a retired Special Forces Colonel and WW2 Veteran who I've discussed the matter with. Hurl as many accusations as you would like but the simple truth of this matter is that I know what I'm talking about and you likely dont.


How about responding with facts to the fact that Donovan couldn't have issued OSS orders for Patton's murder when OSS had been disbanded a couple of months earlier, and the other points I suggested might convince me of the correctness of your argument in my posts #10 to #13? I'd really appreciate just once in my years on this forum having somebody making preposterous claims actually responding factually to my factual challenges to them instead of trying to divert the discussion with the sort iof rrelevant trolling / conspiracy theory /ad hominen rubbish you've presented in your last post. OK, fine I'll respond to the one relevant sentence out of all that drivel you posted. Re: Donovan. Do you not understand how shallow your thinking is here? First of all I do not contend that Donovan "gave the order" but it's certainly possible and the little "gotcha" factoid you so desperately cling to (which I suspect is the single tidbit of knowledge you possess regarding this case) would do nothing nothing to poke holes in such a theory:

1) I suppose you'll call me a "crazy conspiracy theorist" when I tell you that elements of the SS were still operating in the Summer of 1945. "B-B-B-But they were officially disbanded on V-E Day."

2) So what if OSS was "officially" disbanded in October and the "accident" in december? A hit on a player such as Patton takes much planning.


Unlike you, the rest of us have read rather more than just one poorly researched and historically flimsy book on Patton. Really? I think the opposite is closer to true. Why don't you name some of the books you've read on Patton, like I have? I've read every single important book ever written on Patton, several of them still in my posession and I can quote directly from them.
I would bet my work truck you have never read any of the important books on General Patton, and I have doubts that you're much of a book reader at all. You are already calling Target Patton "poorly researched and historically flimsy" without reading or even skimming it, which displays a smugness and a lack of curiosity that, coupled with your extreme long winded pretentiousness, would seem to indicate that you are nothing but a poseur who doesn't like reading books at all.

If you had ever read Patton: Genius for war, or Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, The Last Days of Patton, or any of the other "respectable" books on Patton you would know of the many strange brushes with death Patton had in the months preceding his death, such as:

His plane coming under attack by a British spitfire while he flew over Soviet controlled airspace - MONTHS AFTER V-E DAY, when plane misidentification couldn't explain it. Nobody was supposed to be attacking anyone. Patton's pilot was combat experienced and did some deft maneuvering, and the Spitfire crashed. This would point towards a very inexperienced pilot in the Spitfire, perhaps an NKVD assassin with a grave waiting for him if he had been successful. No way should Patton's plane (a piper cub IIRC) had been able to escape that.

Also: while traveling down street, some weeks before his "accident", Patton's open jeep collided with an oxcart which suddenly appeared from a side street, and had some farm equipment (like a scythe) protruding from the front of it, which missed Patton's head by inches and would surely have killed him.

You would also know that Patton was calling for war with the Soviet Union. He wanted it badly, and he was trying to make it happen.

You really think it's "absurd" that people wthin the united states government, having just finished with the most bloody foreign war they had even been involved with, wouldn't have been desperate to stop such a man?

if you read Patton: a Genius for War, or The Last Days of Patton, you would know that General Marshall and Eisenhower both thought that Patton had "lost his marbles" and was completely mad. They even sent a psychologist disguised as a supply clerk to try and surreptitiously observe Patton, to have him declared insane. It's "absurd" to believe that someone MIGHT have have sanctioned the elimination of a MADMAN WHO WAS TRYING TO START WORLD WAR III? Really? That's absurd? Really.

That is to say nothing of Stalin, who we now know was bugging Patton's phone: while Patton said he could mop up the whole Russian Army in 2 months, wanted to do it, wanted to use the SS units he was holding as prisoners to help do it, and said that he could "make it look like their fault." You are all saying that it's absurd and trolling, to say that STALIN would plot to have someone killed?

All of this stuff^, while covered in target Patton, is also covered in all those "reputable" books which none of you has read either.

Rising Sun, I would advise you to try your hardest to get me banned, because I am not a poseur and I think think that you are. If I do not get banned then after a while, at the very least, you will come to find out that I do not exaggerate my knowledge or grasp of subjects. Perhaps I will even find that there are subjects you have respectable knowledge of (Patton isn't one of them, and you know it). I would love to continue this debate in an honest way, but let us observe this:

In every single post between you, nickdfresh and that other goober here, all you have done is personally attack me, hurl accusations, and call for me to be banned. Out of who-knows-how-many sentences, only one of them contained a single relevant point: RS with regards to OSS being disbanded prior to Patton's death.

Which was a fine and perfectly valid point, by the way. All I ask is that you keep an open mind, and let us try to confine our discussions to the evidence, rather than 100% attack mode. Skepticism is perfectly appropriate, but none of you are being skeptical, you're being credulous. Skeptical means that you examine closely, credulous means acceptance without examination. You're all credulously dismissing the possibility of a murder plot, which is something that almost no Patton historian does

tankgeezer
01-19-2013, 07:32 AM
I hope you have traveling plans Washout, you've been warned sufficiently, so its vacation time for you. For failing to adhere to site rules, despite several official warnings, you are banned for a minimum period of 10 days. This may be increased upon review of the entire Staff. -Tankgeezer-

Rising Sun*
01-19-2013, 09:53 AM
While Washout is having his holiday, he might like to consider other equally well founded claims relating to the alleged murder of Patton which suggest that the non-existent OSS didnít do it.

1. The Jews / Zionists did it: http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2009/03/30/zionists-killed-general-george-patton.php
2. Nah, the Jesuits did it. Hardly surprising, as Stalin was under Jesuit control. http://protestantamerican.blogspot.com.au/2006/07/general-patton-assassinated-by-jesuits.html
3. 85% the Soviets killed him, 3% any one of substance in the US was involved, 0% the US alone. http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/29338674/Was-General-Patton-killed.aspx (Missing 12% not explained. Probably aliens from the planet Xenon, as one of their spaceships was hovering over the hospital when Patton died.)

Nickdfresh
01-19-2013, 10:17 AM
...
All of this stuff^, while covered in target Patton, is also covered in all those "reputable" books which none of you has read either.

...

You've never read any of those as you have exhibited a complete lack of prior knowledge on any of it and are obviously just Google-fu'ing titles and portions of these books to dig a deeper hole with your idiotic repsonses.

And the seemingly ominous tidbits (such as Patton's plane encountering a Spitfire) are completely understandable as friendly fire incidents were very common. Like as in Glen Miller, who no doubt was murdered by the RAF in an effort of the British to buck up their inferior music industry! The "SS" were underground as a failed insurgent organization, and more so an ***-covering group trying to get their people and money out of Germany and avoiding responsibility. The OSS was simply demobbed with its assets possibly being transferred to Army Intelligence.

Everyone thought Patton was unhinged and that was simply part of his personality, in no small part due to a series of head injuries suffered in car accidents (even before WWII!) and the result of being kicked in the head by an Army mule. Of course, the mule was commie agent of the NKVD and knew full well of Patton's inevitable greatness...

Rising Sun*
01-20-2013, 05:44 AM
The OSS was simply demobbed with its assets possibly being transferred to Army Intelligence.

If Army Intelligence is alleged to be responsible for Patton's collision and subsequent death following disbandment of OSS a couple of months earlier, that is an irrefutable argument against any American involvement.

There is not an intelligence corps in any army in the world which could manage to get two army, or any other, vehicles to an agreed point at an agreed time, let alone manage to get an assassin to the same point at the same time the vehicles didn't arrive. ;) :)

Nickdfresh
01-21-2013, 10:43 AM
I was a member of Army Intelligence, sir and I can say I am most disheartened by your remark as we were very effective at countering all intelligence everywhere and were ever vigilant in doing so. We found all intelligence and squashed it wherever it lay. We were always out back, ever vigilant (for women and alcohol) and led the way (to the rear during actual fighting). We always had everyones' back in combat, as we would always be right behind them (but not too close, of course)...

pdf27
01-21-2013, 11:13 AM
OT: What were your lot known as? Ours are generally referred to as Green Slime...

Nickdfresh
01-21-2013, 09:03 PM
OT: What were your lot known as? Ours are generally referred to as Green Slime...

R.E.M.F.'s...

Washout
02-03-2013, 08:14 AM
Dearest NickDFresh,

I promise you that I have read each and every book that I claim to have read, some more than once. I do understand why you would be so quick to accuse me of being a Google pretender, since on this topic that's precisely what you are guilty of. I'm sure that there are many facets of WW2 which you have read books about and researched (at least I hope so), but you know good and well that this is not one of them. I wish there was some way to pique your curiosity, but i fear that you corrupted your thinking from the getgo by hurling insults before you knew what you were talking about. From there forward, you can only be counted on to stack sandbags of confirmation bias as high as is necessary to protect yourself from humiliation. At this point, honest consideration of truth vs falsehood is completely overwhelmed; for it is now about winning vs losing.

It is amusing to observe that I was banned for ... what, again? Excessive rudeness? I would ask that anyone read this thread and see for himself just who was attacking whom out of the gate. All I was asking was that people examine for themselves the evidence, and in response I got testy, nasty denouncements, to which there really was no polite way to respond. I do not INSIST that Patton was murdered. Of course I think he was, and all I'm asking is for an honest examination of the evidence, which you and Falling Sun have demonstrated an unwillingness to do. Indeed, RS came back rapid fire with a perfect example of confirmation bias (more like confirmation desperation) in action

I'm fairly certain that I'll be banned again, just for this reply. For around here people are very protective of their smug little bubbles. There is really no need to ban me again, as I have had my fill of this forum. It doesn't function well on my computer, and also there is obviously no room for honest discussion about anything not consistent with the movie version of WW2.

EDIT: Final thought: NickD accuses me of being a total poseur and of not actually reading the books that I claim to. Well, Nick, if I have, in fact, read each and every book I claim to have, then that makes you a total dildo, now doesn't it?

Nickdfresh
02-03-2013, 09:36 AM
Dearest NickDFresh,

I promise you that I have read each and every book that I claim to have read, some more than once. I do understand why you would be so quick to accuse me of being a Google pretender, since on this topic that's precisely what you are guilty of. I'm sure that there are many facets of WW2 which you have read books about and researched (at least I hope so), but you know good and well that this is not one of them. I wish there was some way to pique your curiosity, but i fear that you corrupted your thinking from the getgo by hurling insults before you knew what you were talking about. From there forward, you can only be counted on to stack sandbags of confirmation bias as high as is necessary to protect yourself from humiliation. At this point, honest consideration of truth vs falsehood is completely overwhelmed; for it is now about winning vs losing.

It obviously isn't about "winning or losing". That's already been predetermined for you, unfortunately. I'm not sure whether you've read your poor collection of bizarre, poorly sourced conspiracy garbage pandering to a small segment of the U.S. population or not. But you might need to read again, because you clearly do not understand what even that text is saying....


It is amusing to observe that I was banned for ... what, again? Excessive rudeness? I would ask that anyone read this thread and see for himself just who was attacking whom out of the gate. All I was asking was that people examine for themselves the evidence, and in response I got testy, nasty denouncements, to which there really was no polite way to respond. I do not INSIST that Patton was murdered. Of course I think he was, and all I'm asking is for an honest examination of the evidence, which you and Falling Sun have demonstrated an unwillingness to do. Indeed, RS came back rapid fire with a perfect example of confirmation bias (more like confirmation desperation) in action

I didn't ban you. But I think you're idiotic, disrespectful user-profile is probably a good start to reason why you were banned to the "masturbatory."

You haven't provided any "evidence" for your extraordinary claim other than a fringe book written by an author with a track record of crap. I think he wrote a book on the Shroud of Turin? Something that has been long debunked as a fake...


I'm fairly certain that I'll be banned again, just for this reply. For around here people are very protective of their smug little bubbles. There is really no need to ban me again, as I have had my fill of this forum. It doesn't function well on my computer, and also there is obviously no room for honest discussion about anything not consistent with the movie version of WW2.

EDIT: Final thought: NickD accuses me of being a total poseur and of not actually reading the books that I claim to. Well, Nick, if I have, in fact, read each and every book I claim to have, then that makes you a total dildo, now doesn't it?

LOL You don't even understand the lousy text you provided, but I'm the "dildo"? Goodbye son. Good luck being a teacher, my bet is you won't make it a year if you get hired at all...

Rising Sun*
02-04-2013, 07:15 AM
Of course I think he was, and all I'm asking is for an honest examination of the evidence, which you and Falling Sun have demonstrated an unwillingness to do. Indeed, RS came back rapid fire with a perfect example of confirmation bias (more like confirmation desperation) in action

Yeah, and all I'm asking for is for you to address the specific questions I've asked several times instead of you doing the usual trolling "avoid specific questions and throw out more baits for pointless disputation while carefully avoiding providing answers which destroy the troll's supposed arguments".


I'm fairly certain that I'll be banned again, just for this reply.

Not by me.

The longer you stay around and the more vigorously you avoid answering specific questions, the more you destroy your own position and demonstrate that you cannot support your assertions with facts and logical arguments.

I don't think anyone apart from you cares whether your knowledge of WWII is encylopaedic or derived from a comic book.

What we do care about is, among other things, your ability to put up a rational and factually supported response to challenges to your assertions.

You have chosen not to do that so far, so you cannot expect to convince anyone of your position by failing specifically to refute specific challenges to it.

As they say in the classics: Piss, or get off the pot.

Rising Sun*
02-04-2013, 08:24 AM
but I'm the "dildo"? .

Well, if you are, you've got to wonder about where you fit into his Mastubatory.

I'm guessing that he has one hand full in the Mastubatory.

I leave it to your imagination to speculate on what the other hand is doing with the dildo.

Possibly pushing shit uphill, rather like his conspiracy theories.