Eisenhower, Donovan Murdered Patton

In another example proving that the American government is an organized crime syndicate governed by psychopaths, author Robert Wilcox demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that George Patton was murdered on orders of OSS chief William Donovan.

 

Establishment historians have long maintained that Patton died from complications stemming from a freak automobile accident on December 9, 1945, but they fail to elaborate the freak part in which the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the NKVD, the Soviet counterpart to the CIA, collaborated in murdering the World War 2 hero.

 

Through an odd happenstance which Wilcox describes in his book, he received information that the man who engineered the accident injuring Patton was still alive. While interviewing him, Douglas Bazata confessed to direct knowledge of and participation in the murder of Patton. In fact Donovan gave him the orders to murder the general, sweetening it with a 10,000 USD stipend.

 

One important note about Donovan is that he reported directly to the President, in this case Roosevelt, or in some cases the military service chiefs. Thus it is important to realize that Roosevelt was more than likely the authority for the murder of Patton, as Roosevelt was in the palm of Stalin’s hand whose involvement we shall mention shortly. Stalin in turn was the sock puppet of the Rothschild Ziocons.

 

Bazata also confessed in 1979 before an OSS reunion in New York City, according to website fathersmanifesto.net copyrighted 2007, which was a year before Wilcox’s book was published, that he indeed planned the murder of General Patton. (We are uncertain of the actual publication date of this article we reference in the footnotes).

 

On December 9, Patton, along with General Gay, was riding in his 1938 Cadillac limousine outside of Manheim on a narrow road when a 2.5 ton military truck abruptly pulled in front of the vehicle, resulting in what Wilcox described as a “fender bender.” No one was injured except for Patton, who was allegedly thrown forward 4 feet. That never happened. Bazata used a kinetic energy weapon to fire a piece of heavy metal at Patton in the forehead, leaving him unconscious and certain for dead.

 

Just to make sure that Patton would die, his driver took him to a hospital in Heidelberg which was 30 minutes away, even though a hospital in Mannheim was much closer.

 

Immediately after the staged accident, a swarm of US military officials, including those of very high rank, descended upon the scene to perform a hoax investigation, and to help the perpetrators escape. Indeed both Patton’s driver and the 3 passengers in the truck disappeared in an instant, never to be seen again.

 

When Patton made a surprise recovery, NKVD agents administered a drug which induced an embolism leading to death on the day he was scheduled to return to the United States for further convalescence. His bags were packed and ready to go when he suffered the attack.

 

The information regarding the Soviet assassins was confirmed by the Soviet NKVD when it revealed to one of Patton’s children the true cause of his death from cyanide.

 

At least 3 other plots to murder Patton beginning in 1944/5 failed until the December scheme succeeded. But who would want the famous war hero dead?

 

Wilcox answers that question with several solutions, one of which included raw unbridled jealousy. Patton was a military virtuoso who could outfight someone like Eisenhower with one eye closed and a hand tied behind his back. If it weren’t for Patton, Eisenhower would have been driven off the continent at the Battle of the Bulge which was guaranteed because of Eisenhower’s treasonous refusal to allow Patton to close the Falaise Gap which would have destroyed the German army.

 

Another reason for Patton’s murder was his outspoken animosity towards the Soviets, an outspokenness which caught the attention of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who happily collaborated with Donovan when the general approached him for support for his murder plot.

 

World War 2 was a staged conflict whose primary purpose was German genocide and the partitioning of Europe into 2 camps which played scripted roles as mortal enemies. Patton’s plans for pushing the Soviets out of Europe foiled those goals.

 

Thus was born the Stop Patton operation, an officially sanctioned scheme to murder the general. This operation was implemented by Eisenhower, his aide General Bedell Smith, General Omar Bradley, and other SHAEF staff. Information of Eisenhower’s involvement is corroborated by Bert Roosen, one of Eisenhower’s interpreters who witnessed discussions between Eisenhower and his aides planning the assassination.

 

Another motive for Patton’s murder was his rather public statements that he was going to report directly to the American people Eisenhower’s murder of what would become 1.7 million men, women, and children in Allied death camps administered by Eisenhower and Smith. Patton had defied the death orders and treated his POWs humanely and quickly released them until Eisenhower stripped him of his command.

 

One of the key elements in Patton’s planned disclosures was Eisenhower’s release of at least 12,000 US POWs to Stalin’s slave labor camps. When Patton proposed a rescue mission, Eisenhower stopped him cold.

 

Finally, Patton’s reports would have destroyed the careers of many military officers, not the least of which was Bernard Baruch’s sock puppet Eisenhower. The SHAEF commander had deliberately, on numerous occasions, sabotaged Allied military successes including the Falaise Gap fiasco, and taking away Patton’s gasoline, preventing him from pre-empting the Soviet entry into Germany and Berlin.

 

The death of Patton had all of the standard characteristics of a CIA murder operation. No autopsy was performed on the General, his assassins disappeared into thin air, his automobile was replaced with a forgery to destroy forensic evidence, he was poisoned in the hospital when he refused to die in the car, and investigation reports vanished into the ether. Wilcox knows of at least 5 accident investigation reports which are completely missing in the national and military archives, and surmises that an additional 3 were conducted which are entirely missing.

 

We have only skimmed the surface of this fascinating story and some of its equally engaging characters. Wilcox’s book fills in the details. It is manifestly clear that ancient Rome has nothing on Washington when it comes to murder.

 

Reference

Robert Wilcox, Dale Williams Interviews Robert K Wilcox, FreeWestRadio, June 16, 2009, accessed YouTube 9/21/2014

Robert Wilcox, The Mysterious Death of George S Patton, The American Thinker, November 22, 2012, accessed 9/20/2014

fathersmanifesto.net, Douglas Bazata, copyright 2007 - this may not be the article's publication year


Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Was Dwight Eisenhower a Jew?

Some speculators have put together the story that Dwight Eisenhower was a crypto Jew whose allegiances to Zionism preceded those to the United States. While we believe that Eisenhower was a Zionist, the evidence so far does not substantiate that he was a Jew.

The thesis that Eisenhower was Jewish states that there are Jewish lines from his father’s family, which formed the basis of his relationship with Zionist Bernard Baruch, the man without whose approval the governments of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt did not function. Baruch used his power to elevate Eisenhower to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe over many better qualified men, which favor he repaid in his genocidal assault on the German people after World War 2. As president, he used his powers to advance the Jewish state. Finally, the proponents of Eisenhower’s Jewishness point to various coats of arms which indicate that Eisenhower is a Jewish surname.

The foundation of the theory is a statement in Eisenhower’s West Point yearbook which calls him the “terrible Swedish –Jew. “ While there is certainly some circumstantial evidence to suggest that Eisenhower may have been Jewish, we believe that the best evidence refutes it.

To understand Eisenhower’s religious upbringing, we turn to Jerry Bergman, who as a Jew may be suspect,  who did an excellent job of collating various biographical profiles of Eisenhower during his formative years prior to entering West Point.

Bergman demonstrates that Eisenhower’s parents were initially associated with the River Brethren, a Protestant sect sharing beliefs with the Mennonites, but converted to a group which in time became known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, a source of considerable embarrassment to the 5 Eisenhower boys later in life, all of whom rejected the faith, along with their father, later in life.

Eisenhower’s mother, Ida, converted to the faith when her 8 month old son Paul died in 1895. She was wooed into the sect by consoling neighbors in Abilene, KS who convinced her that she would see her son in the impending resurrection expected to occur within a few years.

Ida and her husband David were very devout adherents to the religious sect known at that time as Russelites or Bible Students, meaning that their 5 boys were heavily immersed in Bible teaching and other activities of the sect. One of the major aspects of the Bible Students was millennialism which stressed the imminent return of Jesus to establish his Kingdom on earth and to rule from Jerusalem. Thus there was a strong predisposition toward Christian Zionism.

Although Eisenhower no longer considered himself as part of the faith after 1915, the time his dad abandoned it when certain prophecies related to World War 1 did not materialize, he nonetheless retained a significant residue from his childhood training, which as we noted included Christian Zionism.

Around 1930 Eisenhower worked closely with Zionist Bernard Baruch, a very influential member of Roosevelt’s kitchen cabinet. We suspect that Baruch took a liking to Eisenhower whose religious views coincided with his own concerning the establishment of a Jewish state. Thus as Eisenhower’s career progressed, Baruch was happy to promote the Gentile Eisenhower at the critical moment of selecting an allied commander for Europe’s offences against Germany. Eisenhower repaid the support with a genocidal onslaught against Germans which would have caused his mother to spin rapidly in her grave.

Regarding Eisenhower’s yearbook epitaph, one commentator stated well when he said that it most likely was a reference to his penury as a cadet due to the very modest means of his parents. Eisenhower had to support himself at school since his parents were certainly in no position to do so.

This does not exhaust the problems with Eisenhower though, as researcher Don Nicoloff discovered. Eisenhower’s birth is shrouded in mystery, but we do know that around 1952 an unknown New York law firm arranged for a forged birth certificate stating that Eisenhower was born in Denison, TX. Yet when asked where he was born and his age upon entering the United States from the Canal Zone in 1924, Eisenhower stated that he was born in Tyler, TX and that his age was 34 when in fact it was 33. Was he really telling the truth or a lie?

This episode raises a number of questions about the truthfulness of Eisenhower and the reliability of his birth story, and hence the question about his ethnicity. Was he hiding a birth substantially different than what he told the public?

While we are rather inclined to believe that he was born in the United States, and was not a Jew, we leave open other possibilities pending additional research. At the very least he was a Zionist puppet who advanced various Zionist genocidal causes.

Postscript 8/11/2019: A comment by a reader prompted us to finally post our revised conclusions about Eisenhower's Jewishness, but not due to the yearbook reference which is at best dubious.

Two important points lead us to conclude that Eisenhower was indeed Jewish, the first of which is the patrilineal Jewish connection. Some will strenuously contend that Jewishness can only pass through the mother but that is an absurdity used for theater and plausible deniability. It is also quite likely that further research would discover Jewish ancestry in Eisenhower's matrilineal line which has probably been effaced, a contention which the second point forebodes.

The next point is more telling. The Jew Bernard Baruch was an important Eisenhower mentor, meaning that Eisenhower was emphatically Jewish. It would be nigh unto impossible for a prominent Jew to spend any time advancing the career or prosperity of a non-Jew at such strategic levels, something which their Talmudic teachings make quite plain.

Eisenhower was entrusted as a point man for the fake Holocaust story, one whose evidence is so flimsy as to be laughable were it not for the sinister ends to which that abominable lie has been put.

Additionally, Eisenhower's systematic food deprivation of the Germans also made him an insider to the Jewish program to exterminate the White or "gentile" people.

Finally, Eisenhower's murder of General George Patton puts the icing on the cake of Eisenhower's ruthless determination to give his people mastery over the Soviet Union and to fully efface White culture in eastern Europe. Jews bankrolled the Red Revolution and the USSR. They extended their empire to the east in the wake of World War 2, an advance which Patton threatened to thwart.

So even without the genealogical proof which we demanded in our original article, we believe that a firm case can be made that Eisenhower was a Jew.

Reference

Don Nicoloff, Eisenhower 1952 Birth-Certificate Fraud Revealed, November 29, 2009, accessed 4/6/2014, http://www.whale.to/b/eisenhower1.html

Jerry Bergman, Why President Eisenhower Hid His Jehovah's Witness Upbringing, nd

Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

First Impressions: Other Losses

For those wanting a better picture of the moral condition of post war Europe and its Allied commanders, one can do no better than reading Other Losses by James Bacque. It recounts the squalid conditions which permeated every American and French Prisoner of War camp under both Eisenhower’s and De Gaulle’s command.

 

We are enthusiastic admirers of Bacque for he sees past the hagiography of both men to present them as they truly are – men of moral turpitude whose reputations for decency or virtue are entirely undeserved. Bacque minces no words in assigning responsibility to these men, particularly Eisenhower, in promulgating policies which deliberately and maliciously lead to the deaths of 800 – 1500 thousands of men under American control.

 

Bacque has no patience for the exculpatory excuses of command aloofness, or the “chaos” of war, as he shows that Eisenhower not only operated an efficient army, but was well briefed on its operations to the lowest levels. In fact, Eisenhower had a direct hand in the promulgation of policies which resulted purposely in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, which in our minds makes Eisenhower a murderer on an epic scale.

 

Some may excuse Eisenhower’s behavior due to the wanton suffering he saw as he marched across Europe, but this a canard of a murderer – not that of a fact seeker. Civilized society has laws and public mechanisms for dealing with crimes, but Eisenhower took into his own hands a furtive administration of genocide against the German people.

 

There is no question that the Germans mistreated prisoners of war and imposed their own atrocities on conquered countries, but to use that as a defense of Eisenhower’s murder is to justify murder as a policy of state – a complete repudiation of civilization.

 

Returning to our review, Bacque shows the methods Eisenhower used to command his army, methods which when at all possible utilized winks, nods, and intermediaries to accomplish his will, rather than use of explicit forthright commands and directives. Thus the mechanisms for surreptitiously carrying out a genocidal policy were already well established with the SHAEF commander.

 

The policies for carrying out the mass extermination of POWs were formulated both in the White House and in SHAEF headquarters. Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, had crafted his famous Morgenthau Plan of pastoralizing Germany by dismantling its industry and returning it an agricultural idyll. But the implications are of the most sinister kind because it was designed to deprive the Germans of the currency needed to feed themselves as the nation used manufactured exports to raise the monies needed to import adequate food.

 

Bacque, quoting Eisenhower’s famous rage that he regretted not being able to kill more Germans, shows that Eisenhower had the animus to support the Morgenthau plan, a plan which he implemented throughout his command. The first step came from the State Department which removed Switzerland’s protective role of German POWs after the country surrendered unconditionally. This move deprived POWs of protective custody and all of their rights under the Geneva and Hague treaties. Without any legal protections, Eisenhower ordered the reclassification of POWs to Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEF) which allowed him to reduce rations to German prisoners below subsistence levels, thus resulting in a prolonged painful death by starvation.

 

On the other hand, starvation was not the leading cause of death in America’s concentration camps which were so overcrowded that in many of them, the prisoners could literally not lie down. The most common causes of death resulted from grossly unsanitary camp conditions which engendered disease, and hastened death aggravated by starvation.

 

To cover up his crimes, Eisenhower ordered the International Red Cross banned from all camps, denied mail privileges in all American camps, banned all reporters from the camps, and denied civilian authorities access to the camps. He instituted a system of brainwashing where military administrators began systematically denying in German town hall meetings the news that prisoners were dying at alarming rates in American camps.

 

But the most deceptive practice Eisenhower implemented was fraudulent bookkeeping which entailed the use of a euphemistic category called Other Losses which included by definition escapes and deaths. Bacque discovered that very few prisoners escaped, meaning that well over 99% of the Other Losses were deaths. Eisenhower’s camp commanders buried these bodies in mass graves, an act which led us to conclude elsewhere that many of the so-called German mass graves were in fact American mass graves of German prisoners.

 

Bacque required the skills of a forensic accountant to uncover the true numbers of concealed deaths. The war records were deliberately destroyed, and prisoner numbers at times hopelessly inconsistent, but he nevertheless managed to piece together enough data to draw some tentative and reasonable conclusions about the extent of the genocide. He discovered that death rates in the American camps hovered around 30%.

 

The argument advanced by others that there were food shortages throughout Europe are laid to waste and exposed for the vicious fraud that they are. Bacque reports that Red Cross and US Army warehouses were bursting with food, enough to more than terminate the starvation alleged to be the result of food shortage. In addition, he shows that American and Canadian surpluses of food were actually becoming problematic.

 

But the prisoners were not just soldiers; they included women and children – even pregnant women. Americans would go to the barbed wire cages and open fire on them, claiming that they saw an escape in progress. Bacque tells of one instance where a French captain murdered in cold blood a group of women who were trying to bring food to the captives. Americans forbade, on pain of death – without trial – anyone from approaching the camps to bring food.

 

Of course Eisenhower had great help in prosecuting his vengeful massacre, names which Bacque thankfully mentions, such as Beddell Smith and Everett Hughes.

 

The extraordinary research and findings of Bacque have forever changed our views of America’s involvement in World War 2, and so-called heroes. Eisenhower is forever in our mind a murderer with no redeeming qualities.

Reference

James Bacque, Other Losses, Prima Publishing, nd, posted online abundanthope.com September 6, 2011, accessed 1/24/2014

 

Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Did Eisenhower Murder Patton?

In reading the gory details of Other Losses by James Bacque, the thought occurred to us that Dwight Eisenhower murdered George Patton.

 

Although most Americans do not yet realize that Eisenhower was a mass murderer of epic proportions, and perhaps Bacque would be aghast that we have drawn such a conclusion from his carefully researched book, Eisenhower has clearly established himself as a murderer, and shown the capacity for murdering persons who cross his arrogant anger.

 

We are well aware of the many "proofs" that Patton died in a fluke car accident, but we don't buy it. We have seen uncountable instances of the CIA covering up murder with "accidents." Thus our view is that the "accident" in which Patton died was staged.

 

But why would Eisenhower murder someone whom he rescued from professional oblivion on more than one occasion? The insight came to us in reading Patton's remarks about Eisenhower's brutal methods in handling captured Germans after the war, methods which he likened to the Gestapo. Patton also quickly and humanely released the hundreds of thousands of German prisoners in his custody, which was at complete variance with Eisenhower's carefully calculated murder.

 

The real risk to Eisenhower is that Patton had the public visibility and prestige to completely expose Eisenhower's lies and deceptions which he ensconced into the Army's public records to cover up his massacre policies. Although we do not think that Patton intended to embarrass his murdering commander, we do believe that he represented a risk nonetheless. And Patton's remarks about the Soviets were not helpful either.

 

Thus we believe that Eisenhower had the motive and will to murder anyone who threatened his policies and posterity, and consequently ordered the murder - however subtly and obliquely - of George S Patton in a staged "accident."

 

Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Dwight David Eisenhower Was a Mass Murderer

Dwight Eisenhower is often portrayed as the avuncular wise leader who brought America's armies through World War 2 and who guided the nation in peace time as it fought against the Red Menace. What this white washed story does not tell you is that Eisenhower was a mass murderer equal to or greater than Adolf Hitler was alleged to be.

 

We first encountered this shocking discovery in a reference to Other Losses, an historical tour de force by James Bacque which exposed for the first time the barbaric cruelty Eisenhower practiced against German prisoners of war, and civilians including women and children.

 

We thought the allegations so preposterous that we sought challenges to the book, one of which came from the pen of establishment stalwart Stephen E Ambrose whom we later discovered to be a serial plagiarist.

 

His article in the New York Times Book Review of February 24, 1991 provided a reasonable rebuttal of the fantastic claims of Bacque, explaining that the author was a non-professional historian who made basic errors in handling statistics, misunderstood documents, and coerced testimony from Colonel Lauben who provided much first hand evidence for Bacque's thesis.

 

The book review was a limited hang out, meaning that Ambrose acknowledged that Bacque had uncovered a key truth, but that he had totally misconstrued the facts he had discovered. As always, a spook from the Department of Defense was rushed out to explain to us what the facts really meant.

 

Fortunately Bacque was not deterred by the torrent of criticism, and published follow up versions to his book, most recently in 2011, the first to be published in the US - over 20 years after the original publication of his book overseas. The CIA controlled media refused to publish the book because it contradicted the fairy tale about Eisenhower.

 

While we will publish a fuller review of the book shortly, we noted that numerous other first hand witnesses corroborated Bacque's story about the squalid conditions in Eisenhower's death camps, some of whom were threatened by CIA bullies, leading us to believe that Bacque had discovered the truth.

 

The conditions of Eisenhower's death camps can only be compared to those found at Andersonville during the Civil War. The conditions were not the result of the chaos of the aftermath of war. Any reading of Eisenhower's meticulous war plans disproves that nonsense.

 

Even though this story is over 20 years old, we will spread the word about this deplorable policy of the United States government in occupied Europe, a policy which foreshadowed the systematic tortures in Iraq and Guantanamo which continues to this very hour.

 

Dwight Eisenhower and mass murderer are synonyms. Whoever thought that anyone could make Hitler look good?

Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Research Note: President Eisenhower’s Views on Laos

This Research Note documents President Eisenhower’s views on Southeast Asia in general, but Laos in particular, which advocate for US military intervention to prevent the fall of Laos to Communists. We comment on the implications of his views regarding escalation in Southeast Asia as continuity of policy for the period 1945-1972.

 

We take the view that the Viet Nam War was an American experience which started immediately after World War 2 and ended in 1975, making it America’s own 30 Years War. It thus affected the presidencies of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. Involvement in the region escalated continuously until President Nixon signed the Paris Peace Accords with North Viet Nam in 1972.

 

President Eisenhower focused on providing aid to various Southeast Asian countries in an effort to mute or reverse the influences of Communist forces seeking to establish rule in the region. While he authorized a number of military advisors to assist the Vietnamese, he did not commit combat troops.

 

He viewed Laos as the linchpin of the region, so much so that he felt that the United States should take unilateral military action in Laos should Communist forces threaten to overpower the non-Communist government. Eisenhower also shared this view with President-elect Kennedy in 1961 and maintained it without change for the duration of the Kennedy presidency.

 

Kennedy in turn was quite solicitous of the General’s views, maintaining a steady correspondence with him about Southeast Asia and other domestic and foreign matters.

 

In a Memorandum on Conference between President Eisenhower and President-elect Kennedy and their Chief Advisers on January 19, 1961, date January 24, 1961, Kennedy advisor Clark Clifford recorded the following observation from the meeting about President Eisenhower:

At this point, President Eisenhower stated that Laos is the present key to the entire area of South East Asia. If Laos were lost to the Communists, it would bring an unbelievable pressure to bear on Thailand, Cambodia and South Vietnam. President Eisenhower stated that he considered Laos of such importance that if it reached the stage where we could not persuade others to act with us, then he would be willing, "as a last desperate hope, to intervene unilaterally."

Robert McNamara also attended the meeting, but filed this report to the President-elect:

7* President Eisenhower stated without qualification "If Laos is lost to the Free World, in the long run we will lose all of Southeast Asia." A. With respect to Laos: 1. President Eisenhower advised against unilateral action by the United States in connection with Laos.

The notes are most intriguing in what they emphasize. Clifford reports Eisenhower supporting unilateral  intervention as a last but necessary step, while McNamara only reports Eisenhower’s reluctance to take unilateral action, which in and of itself does not foreclose such action.

Kennedy’s own recollection of the meeting is as follows:

I asked the Secretary [Herter] as to whether in his opinion we should intervene if the SETO was invoked by the government. He said very directly that he felt we should. It was the cork in the bottle. If Laos fell, then Thailand, the Philippines, and of course Chiang Kai Shek would go. I turned to the President. He stated also that he felt we should intervene.

In Kennedy’s memorandum, the trigger is a SEATO invocation for intervention against the Communists rather than a unilateral one. So while they all heard Eisenhower support intervention in Laos, it is not clear whether this action required SEATO sanction or joint action, or, if the US would shoulder the intervention alone, thus making it unilateral. That undertaking would be outside the boundaries of the treaty which was a mutual defense pact.

In 1962, Eisenhower clears the ambiguities noted above, according to CIA Director John McCone’s Memorandum for the Record dated May 10, 1962:

Eisenhower dwelt at length on the danger of South Vietnam and Thailand as both will be outflanked if Laos is in the Communist hands and concluded that such a situation would be so critical to Southeast Asia and so important to the U. S. that most extreme measures, including the commitment of U.S. forces to combat in Laos, were justified.

 

Eisenhower is later reported in the memorandum as stating that US unilateral action would be “appropriate.” He expressed views so strongly about the importance of Laos and Southeast Asia that he urged the President to go before Congress seeking authorization to act in Southeast Asia.

 

It is thus impossible for anyone to argue that Eisenhower opposed escalation in Vietnam, even if his own administration had not reached that point. He certainly felt that events were rapidly reaching a crescendo in 1962, and we must note that Eisenhower received regular military and intelligence briefings throughout the Kennedy tenure.

 

For those arguing that Eisenhower was opposed to military intervention in the region, we present the official records which point blankly contradict that view. The explanation is simple – namely that events in Laos had so devolved that the former president’s views evolved to the point of advising President Kennedy to escalate the war.

 

Subsequent consultations with President Johnson support the thesis that Eisenhower favored escalation as he often spoke approvingly of actions Johnson proposed which increased American involvement in Southeast Asia.

 

We believe that we have demonstrated from official memoranda of secret meetings with President Kennedy and his advisors that President Eisenhower advocated an interventionist strategy in Laos and Southeast Asia in general. The fact that his administration committed relatively light resources to the region in no way reflects his fully developed view of the situation in the peninsula.

 

We then conclude that Kennedy's actions in Southeast Asia were a moderation of Eisenhower's strategy and ideas on the foreign policy challenges posed by the region.

 

Reference

Eisenhower-John F Kennedy Correspondence, Correspondences - Contact Documents, Eisenhower-JFKContact.pdf

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.