Sikorski – accident or assassination?

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by No.9, Nov 11, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Polacs have announced they are to exhume the remains of Gen Sikorski to see if it will yield clues as to what happened on 4th July, 1943. It is known and agreed his UK bound plane went down in the sea after take-off from Gib. However, the various evidence put forward and the style of investigation after provided a conspiracy theorist treasure trove ever since. :twisted:

    Have to say, if anyone wants to go down the conspiracy route, this one is abundant in permutations – considerably richer than with say Diana? You can pick a particular villain, like Churchill or Stalin, or make it an ‘Orient Express’ scenario where ‘everybody’ did it.

    The Polacs of course, have long been promoting an innocent and valiant little darlings image of themselves in WWII – conveniently omitting the in between wars facts – selective and massaged history at its finest. Perhaps Sikorski was more of a hindrance than an asset in the ‘big picture’? Perhaps he was just unlucky in this accident? Whatever, the gravy train rolls again. :roll:

    David Irving has ridden it - – and, one of the investigation officers was none other than comrade Buster Crabb, later to generate his own gravy train. 8O :D

    All aboard – await a handful of TV docs and newspaper ‘revelations’ and Polac ‘demands’. :D

    ”During the war the general was prime minister of the Polish government-in-exile in London.

    In July 1943, the Liberator aircraft he was travelling on together with two British MPs, crashed into the sea just seconds after it took off from Gibraltar.

    A British investigation at the time found the plane's controls had jammed. But a separate Polish investigation did not rule out he may been murdered.”

  2. First, how do you make a plane/car etc. crash? Second, how do you guarantee a certain passenger or group of passengers will die? These are the questions you have to ask when people bring up these kinds of conspiracy theories.
  3. Well, IF you’re going to make a plane crash, questionable if you do it at take-off for maximum effect unless you’re going to fire-ball it around take-off? Appreciated this may be when a plane is most vulnerable, but, banking on sufficient damage from a crash in the sea to kill your intended is fairly random, no? Better surely to deposit a banger on board with even a crude delay for when the plane is at altitude.

    But, this presumes the crash immediately after take-off was plan A – suppose it was plan B, or the ‘longstop’, or improv, or, actually just ‘the cover’?
    Cue Shadows playing ‘Man of Mystery’. [​IMG]

    Why were there bodies not recovered – this was not an ocean trench scenario? Were they on board in the first place, were they on board at the time of crash, were one or more ‘unrecovered body/s’ actually very much alive agents??? 8O

  4. There were quite a few aircraft that just rolled off the end of the airstrip at Gibraltar. Don't know what it looks like now but there was just the one runway with sea at both ends. From higher up the Rock you could see outlines of these planes. One was very big and we were told that this was the Sikorsky craft. No facilities there at the time to get it out and the whole thing was deemed as a grave. I'm writing from what I was told back in 1952
  5. Surely if we were going to bump off our pain-in-the-backside Allied leaders, De Gaulle would have been top of the list?
  6. Don’t you mean Admiral Jean Darlan? Oh, sorry, he was topped by a French trainee British agent wasn’t he. Of course, Britain didn’t order him to, then they don’t appear to have ordered him not to? :roll:

    Yes, De Gaulle was an upstart P in the A, but he wasn’t peeing off Stalin that much – Roosevelt yes, and Winston to a degree, but, if liquidated who would broadcast to the friendly Froggies for us? Perhaps ran a bit close at times though? :D

    Still, De Gaulle did get a technical slapping from Uncle Sam at the end of the war – instigated by the Italians??? Quite right, the Aosta Incident. War ends in Italy, Germans leg it home if they can, Partisans sort fascists, Allied forces wait for orders. The Aosta region (NW Italy, French border) was denied in parts to the Germans by strong Partisan forces, many post-armistice regular soldiers turned Partisan. War over and the forces started to disperse. Suddenly an army of Free French roll over the border looking for a huge land grab on orders of De Gaulle.

    Local Partisans and the few SOE officers who operated with them, face up to the French and a stand-off develops. SOE advise London and get a ‘sorry old boy, too busy elsewhere and no British in your area’ reply. Nearest Allied force were Americans, camped miles away detaining some surrendered Germans, drinking vino and catching a few rays. French continued to mass forces, rattle sabres and convince the SOE and Partisans their time was short – which they believed but still weren’t going to budge.

    Uncle Sam did a deal with the Mafia over Sicily, but Aosta is not their territory. Enter the American-Italian Lobby – the good ‘ole boys whose families emigrated to America the previous century, some of whom were now pillars of American politics and industry, like Fiorello La Guardia. Harry Truman appears to have a sudden call of conscience, (or maybe gets an offer he can’t refuse?). Out of the blue a huge US column arrives, with all the toys, and deploys against the French.

    Harry then advises De Gaulle, we have a problem with the aid and equipment we’re sending you while you have men in Italy. French forces withdraw. :wink:

  7. Interesting stuff No. 9. I hadn't heard of the Aosta Incident before, thanks for posting.
  8. Could you expand?
  9. That's how I like my History lessons. Concise and to the point :lol:
  10. One piece of info that is not highlighted is that Kim Philby was head of SOE section V (Iberian pennisula),at the time.There was also last minute additions to the passenger list some of which have never been named.
    My understanding of it is that after a Liberator initially got airborne as this one did they used to decend slightly to gain speed before climbing again this one did decend but failed to climb again,so the sabotarge was probably carried out on board during take-off.Russians for me.
  11. I think I know who you are now- the b*stard who sat behind me in history and flicked my ears with a ruler every time I stuck my hand up to ask a question (because it ate into how much time you had to go for a fag afterwards).
  12. SIS Section V surely? :wink:
  13. That would be a suicide attack, which would be somewhat rare for Russians. Seems a little unlikely.
  14. Dilfor - "Could you expand?"

    Expand on what exactly? Polac aggression and dictatorship before the war or proliferation of myth after the war - and any particular incident or thumbnail?

  15. All of the above. I am genuinely interested - not peddling a position.