Historian claims Patton was killed by CIA

Here's a revival of a long-going conspiracy.

Historian Robert Wilcox claims that he has evidence supporting Patton being assassinated.

www.digitaljournal.com...


Personally I find the idea credible, but a lack of evidence means that I back off from such theories.

But what Wilcox claims was the reason for his assassination goes perfectly in hand with Patton's personality.

Patton definably would reveal military secrets and failures. He hated the poor leadership that seldom poped up, always wanting to do things his way. He hated politicians, and personally I think he wanted to redo Caesars destruction of the senate. His hatred of politicians is matched only with his hatred of his commanders.

Any thoughts?

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Gorman91]

The year Patton died: 1945

The CIA was formed under the National Security Act of 1947.

Of course, there have always been intelligence people and such. But it would kind of be impossible for the "CIA" to have done such a thing since it didn't exist at the time.

Before the CIA, it was the Office of Strategic Services.

reply to post by badmedia


oh, nice catch. How will the historian explain that? lol.


Yet still, it's interesting that he of all people died. The rebel amongst the heroes of ww2.

reply to post by Gorman91


I guess he would probably say he really means the OSS, and that he says CIA because people won't know what the OSS is, but they will know the CIA and that in function they were both intelligence agencies.

But while the OSS was an intelligence gathering agency, it didn't operate like the CIA. It was mostly for strategic war information and was disbanded after WW2.

Then a few years later we get the CIA and it's much much bigger role outside of wartime actions.

The main reason I knew the above is from reading claims that the CIA was formed after learning such things from the Nazi's as far as techniques etc. No idea if it's true, just a claim I'd read before.

I have no idea if Patton was murdered or whatever, just know it couldn't have literally been the CIA. But intelligence gathering and such assassinations are as old as warfare.

IF there was a military leader who was a threat to civilian authority in the post-war world, it was Dugout Doug. Granted, in the immediate post-war period, ensconced in the Dai-Ichi Building, he was key to stability in Japan, but it is pretty clear that he had political ambitions. Further, his actions against the Bonus Army showed that he had little problem with gunning down Americans (Patton was there also (as was Eisenhower), but MacArthur gave the order.

I believe Patton's death was exactly as described in history, a freak accident. It probably was best for Patton, as I don't believe that he would have transitioned well to a peacetime army.

reply to post by Viking04


Yep. I was thinking that too with Patton. That's why I think he would have pulled a Caesar on the Senate. But his death has a lot surrounding it.

Few know that Patton rode through the streets of LA, and he was acting like Caesar.

So, maybe in his inner hearts, while he did this:

www.olive-drab.com...

He thought this

nationalityinworldhistory.net...

Mr. Wilcox even found the former U.S. government assassin Douglas Bazata who admitted to him that he had a hand in the General’s death.


“He confessed to me that he had caused Patton’s ‘accident’ and that he had been ordered to do so by Office of Strategic services boss General William ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan.”

www.digitaljournal.com...

The historian, Robert Wilcox, apparently didn't claim that the CIA killed Patton, but rather the OSS.

Evidently, "The Digital Journal" believed that the average reader wouldn't know about the Office of Strategic Services.

Originally posted by Viking04
IF there was a military leader who was a threat to civilian authority in the post-war world, it was Dugout Doug. Granted, in the immediate post-war period, ensconced in the Dai-Ichi Building, he was key to stability in Japan, but it is pretty clear that he had political ambitions. Further, his actions against the Bonus Army showed that he had little problem with gunning down Americans (Patton was there also (as was Eisenhower), but MacArthur gave the order.

I believe Patton's death was exactly as described in history, a freak accident. It probably was best for Patton, as I don't believe that he would have transitioned well to a peacetime army.

You sound like you believe in euthanasia for old soldiers who won't just fade away. Gimme a break. He probably would have had a very happy retirement with his family, researching military history and strategy, etc.

I always wondered what would have happened in Korea if Patton had not died in 1945.

Patton was well known for unconventional tactics.

reply to post by Viking04


A person who knows history. How refreshing in ATS.

In military parlance, you were dead on and fired for effect.

Star for you....

Originally posted by ANNED
I always wondered what would have happened in Korea if Patton had not died in 1945.

Patton was well known for unconventional tactics.

Many also do not know that Patton was involved with the hunt in Mexico for Pancho Villa too, and that Patton personally shot one of Villas top men