NationStates Jolt Archive


New light on Mussolini killing, MI5 did it and Churchill ordered it.

Mr Basil Fawlty
14-09-2004, 00:03
ROME, Aug. 28. — Benito Mussolini was murdered by a two-man team led by a British secret agent acting on the orders of Winston Churchill, according to a new investigation.
In the official version, the Italian dictator and his final mistress, Clara Petacci, were shot by Italian partisans led by Walter Audisio — codenamed “Colonel Valerio” — at the gates of Villa Belmonte at Mezzegra near Lake Como at 4.10 p.m. on 28 April, 1945. Their bodies were then hung upside down in Milan.
But it is now suggested that this was cover-up, and that Mussolini and Petacci were really killed at 11 a.m. that day by Bruno Lonati, an Italian partisan codenamed “Giacomo”, and “Captain John”, a British Special Operations Executive agent of Sicilian parentage whose name was Robert Maccarrone.
An Italian state television documentary — Mussolini: The Final Truth — claims that Mussolini was carrying compromising letters from Churchill written over a period of years involving a deal under which Italy would make a separate peace with the Allies, a breach of Churchill’s agreement with President Roosevelt at Casablanca to seek the “unconditional surrender” of the Axis powers.
“Churchill, who like Mussolini was a life-long anti Bolshevik, was looking ahead to the coming conflict with the Soviet Union,” Peter Tompkins, a veteran American journalist who co-produced the documentary, said. Some biographers of Mussolini deny that the secret correspondence existed. — The Times, London

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=8&theme=&usrsess=1&id=52509
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 00:24
A seperate agreement with Italy? Hmm, why not? They did the same before WW1.
Superpower07
14-09-2004, 00:26
How very interesting . . .
The Black Forrest
14-09-2004, 00:29
Ok.

Explain it for the dimwits like me. ;)

If Benito was going to joing the fight angainst the USSR, why kill him?

What did Churchill have to gain by having him killed?
Stephistan
14-09-2004, 00:39
Ok.

Explain it for the dimwits like me. ;)

If Benito was going to joing the fight angainst the USSR, why kill him?

What did Churchill have to gain by having him killed?

Because during that time period the USSR was the largest ally in WWII we had. Benito Mussolini was in league with Hitler.
Purly Euclid
14-09-2004, 02:27
If Churchill did it, I'm glad he finished the job, and began the liberation of Northern Italy.
Alansyists
14-09-2004, 02:40
I knew IL Duce wasn't disposed by his own people.

Viva La Fascsimo!
The Black Forrest
14-09-2004, 02:44
Because during that time period the USSR was the largest ally in WWII we had. Benito Mussolini was in league with Hitler.

True but towards the end of the war, they were already making plans about the Soviets. Many argue that Dresdan was done just to show the Soviets the kind of power we had.

I will have to check the info out as I still think Benito was done in by his own people.
Dniester
14-09-2004, 06:39
Many argue that Dresdan was done just to show the Soviets the kind of power we had.As a person of German heritage, I'm sure the many innocent people who lost their lives at Dresden really appreciated that.
Anadolu
14-09-2004, 06:47
As a person of German heritage, I'm sure the many innocent people who lost their lives at Dresden really appreciated that.

The identity of many murder victims is incidental when compared to the need being met. The suggestion that the Allies bombed Dresden terribly to prove their strength to the Russians is not offensive. Why do you think they did it? To prove their strength to only the Germans?

Call it the Vietnam syndrome. When someone dies, it must be for some grand purpose. No--that's what makes atrocities so horrific, that people can be killed as a means to an end. Dresden, as in all acts in war, was merely a means, and that diminishes the people killed.

Sad fact; don't be offended by those who merely acknowledge it as such.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 12:24
Dresden, as in all acts in war, was merely a means, and that diminishes the people killed.

Actually it diminishes those that killed. In this case the Americans and British, mostly Americans though. When they start screaming we owe them.
New Vinnland
14-09-2004, 12:33
Actually it diminishes those that killed. In this case the Americans and British, mostly Americans though. When they start screaming we owe them.

When we kill civilians in other countries, it's an 'acceptable loss'. But when our own civilians are killed, it's an 'unjust atrocity'. Funny, that.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 12:38
When we kill civilians in other countries, it's an 'acceptable loss'.
Or collataral damage.
But when our own civilians are killed, it's an 'unjust atrocity'. Funny, that.
Acts of terrorism against a peaceloving nation. Realy a strange view.
Mr Basil Fawlty
14-09-2004, 22:53
I will have to check the info out as I still think Benito was done in by his own people.

No problems Black Forrest, just did the search for you, perhaps it interests you (i think so). Here is some more info, but please pay specialy attention to the Italian history teachers postings. his name is Gabriel pagliarini, altough the other specialists are good researchers to.
Latest WWII documents are giving us the information that he was killed 12 hours before the partisans hang hilm up on the square. Done by Brittish agents.

BTW, I don't give a shit if he was killed by Brits or the communist resistance, but the historical truth is important, just like it is about allied bombing, the holocaust, Bush's crimes aso.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=5791
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=7461
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=58270