GEORGES MANDEL (Statesman) 1885 - 1944:7/ 7

Dear Editor(s):

Georges Mandel, France’s premier statesman might well have survived his various internments in both Vichy France and Nazi Germany and avoided his extra-judicial execution meted out by Cagoule terrorists, at Fontainebleau July 7 1944 – three days after his ‘extradition’ from safe confinement in Germany's Buchenwald Concentration Camp; one moth after D-Day and one month prior to Brigadier De Gaulle’s and Cagoulist Colonel Andre ‘Passy’s seizure of power (Cagoule [Hood] in ‘Anatomy of Terror’ A. Sinclair, 2003)
Historians concur that the June assassination of Vichy Minister, Philippe Henriot, provoked the murder of Georges Mandel ten days later. However none record the presence of Colonel Rol-Tanguy’s agent (planted) in the Minister’s office with obvious control over Henriot’s fate and hence Mandel’s!

Ongoing protection of his true identity constitutes an intolerable effrontery to justice.

Closure of Georges Mandel’s murder file is dependent on exposing the identity of all accessories (dead or alive) to both murders. A significant marker is, Colonel Rol-Tanguy’s confession that “the insurgents of the FFI were not totally delighted to be joined by the Paris Police in the uprising on August 19, 1944 (against the German occupier they had served with zeal for the previous four years). Tanguy (a communist) claimed that the police action was in effect, part of the Gaullist plan to seize the reins of power. Yet he was there yesterday alongside Jacques Chirac, the Gaullist Mayor of Paris, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the event” (Suzanne Lowry, ‘Daily Telegraph’ August 20, 1995).
Consequently, if only to remove himself from being charged as accessory to the murder of his compatriot, Mandel, he should have identified the one with the motive, will and means to implement a proxy execution, namely, fascist Colonel Passy - De Gaulle’s intelligence-police Czar in England (and cross-Channel 'missionary')!
Who was best served by the bloody removal of Mandel’s presence from a post-war reassembly of the Third Republic’s legitimate heirs? Would not Mandel, upon his safe return from captivity, have been given the most honorable reception by the Allied Leaders (Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower) and restored to the leadership position he had manifested, prior to his betrayal by Generals Weygand, Petain and the defeatists in June 1940?

Furthermore, who conspired to bribe “the plaintiff Maurice Henri Dufour”, with 50000 Pounds Sterling, to withdraw the torture lawsuit he had filed (after obtaining a writ on August 6, 1943 in the High Court of Justice London) against “the defendants Brigadier-General De Gaulle, Lieutenant-Colonel Passy (real name Andre de Wavrin) and six other high ranking French Officers”?
Notwithstanding the illegal operations and subversion committed by De Gaulle and his cohorts on British soil (causing a cabinet uproar: “I request my cabinet to urgently consider liquidation of De Gaulle’s political power in order to protect Britain’s national interests”- roared Churchill in May 1943)! The failure to do just that places the burden of refuting the charge of complicity, in subsequent Gaullist/Cagoulist intrigues and criminal actions, fairly and squarely on British shoulders; in particular the failure to intervene and secure Georges Mandel’s longevity beyond his fifty-ninth birthday celebrated on eve of D-Day. Merely banning De Gaulle’s paper ‘La Marseillaise’ was as useless as Churchill’s mea culpa: “ah, if only I had been able to rescue Mandel”, or his cri de coeur to Roosevelt that “of all the crosses I have had to bear, the (double) Cross of Lorraine was the heaviest”!
The final indignity committed against Mandel is the fiction carved into the official memorial stone founded at the spot in Fontainebleau forest where Mandel was so callously struck down. How exactly is one to interpret – “Mandel est mort assassine par les ennemis de la France”? What exactly is meant by “the enemies of France”- precisely who are they? Obviously not Petain – since Francois Mitterand ordained it befitting to shower the latter’s memorial with Presidential wreaths.

In reviewing the ‘9/11 Commission Report’, the ‘Wall Street Journal’ lauds the Commission for clearly defining the contemporary enemy, who it says, “is not just terrorism but the threat posed by Islamic terrorism”. Hence “it is hard to defeat an enemy without defining who it is”!

For starters - is the duty of French authorities to seek linguistic advice intended to secure phraseology reflecting the truth. Inscription revisions on World-War Two memorials aren’t rare operations. Of note in this respect are revisions made to the memorials at Katyn forest in Russia and at Jedwabne in Poland – both clearing the Germans of commission.

Carl Henry Levy-Mandel NY(Cousin)
Klinghofer Institute