Jump to content
The Education Forum

Enrico Mattei


Recommended Posts

While watching the History Channel the other night I heard something which made my ears perk up. According to the program "Godfathers" Enrico Mattei, an Italian oilmen, was killed by the mafia in 1962 as a favor to American oilmen. Upon a quick search of this forum, I found only 3 references to this--all in regards to Thomas Buchanan's Who Killed Kennedy?, which asserts the same men who killed Mattei killed Kennedy. I then performed a Google to see what else I could find and found that various articles over the years have indeed made the assertion Mattei was killed by the mob for one reason or another. A couple of articles assert that the OAS and the CIA's Thomas Karemessines had it in for Mattei as well.

I was, however, unable to find a reference to the History Channel's claim that in 1994 a former member of the mafia admitted they'd killed Mattei by planting a bomb in his plane. If anyone knows who made this confession and under what circumstances it may be helpful. Perhaps this man knows something of the JFK assassination as well.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I am glad you brought this up.

I watched the same program and had exactly the same reaction that you did. And I remembered that the name Mattei had been brought up in Buchanan's book.

Perhaps the death of Mattei deserves additional research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the sites on Mattei are in Italian. This information comes from "answers.com":

When preparing a film on Mattei, in 1970, Francesco Rosi asked Mauro De Mauro to investigate in Sicily on the last days of Mattei. De Mauro soon obtained an audio-tape of his last speech and spent days in continuously listening at it. De Mauro suddenly literally disappeared (8 days after his retrieval of the tape), and no one was able to know anything of him. His dead body was never found.

All the Carabinieri and Police investigators who searched for De Mauro, and consequently investigated on the possible causes of his presumed kidnapping, were later killed. Among them the general Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa.

Tommaso Buscetta, the famous repented mafioso, declared to Giovanni Falcone that the De Mauro affair was not a mafia affair. The strange thing is that the confusion created by his disappearance would have "ordinarily" brought mafia to discover the authors and denounce them, or would have punished them by other means. Buscetta also suggested that the cause was in De Mauro's investigations on Mattei. Gaetano Iannì, another repented mafioso, had already suggested that a special agreement had been achieved between Cosa Nostra and "some foreigners" for the elimination of Mattei.

Admiral Fulvio Martini, later chief of SISMI (military secret service), declared that Mattei's plane had been shot down.

In 1986, Amintore Fanfani described the accident as a shooting down, perhaps the first act of terrorism in Italy.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that too, Tim, but with your posting of it I realized the so-called confession probably came from Ianni. I googled Ianni along with 1994 and received a couple of hundred hits............ Does anyone here read Italian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, at least on this issue our minds seem to be going down the sane path.

I had the same thought about Italian.

I know John has Buchanan's book. Perhaps he can post what reasons (if any) Buchanan had for assserting a relationship between the Mattei murder and the Kennedy assassination.

Pat, I have the following two questions for you: 1)did you think the tv series implied that in 1964 (when Buchanan wrote his book) the plane crash was still considered accidental? 2) what did you think of the rest of the program?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was, however, unable to find a reference to the History Channel's claim that in 1994 a former member of the mafia admitted they'd killed Mattei by planting a bomb in his plane. If anyone knows who made this confession and under what circumstances it may be helpful.

As for the investigation of 1991 against the Italian Parliament, dealing with the history of the Red Brigades and the background of terrorism, the killing of Enrico Mattei was part of the investigation in the Aldo Moro case. In both cases there were links to the group called "Gladio", the Italian name for what was called

"Stay behind" a Secret-NATO-Troup lead by the CIA. Camillo Guglielmi was in charge of Gladio in Italy with his HQ at the NATO-base in Capo Marrargiu on Sardinia. He was also at the scene to witness the kidnapping of Aldo Moro, to see if everything goes as planed.

In this context, investigation also found out, that one of Mattei's bodyguard was a Gladio Officer, who planted the explosives on the plane. Therefore it was not linked

to the mafia directly.

George

Edited by George Bollschweiler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a film made of Mattei's life and death. Below, the May 21, 1973 review from "The New York Times":

Screen: From Italy, 'Mattei Affair':Industrialist Is Focus of Work by Rosi

By ROGER GREENSPUN

In the time between the end of World War II and his death in 1962, Enrico Mattei put together an industrial-service complex that was at the very least instrumental in shaping Italy's postwar economic boom. Based on the discovery of abundant natural gas in the Po valley, but extending to chains of service stations and hotels, to deals with Arabian oil countries, with the Soviet Union and potentially even with China, Mattei's work served neither his own gain nor a private corporation, but rather the national Government—which his enemies asserted he more or less openly controlled.

Mattei had enemies enough, and on an international scale, for his power, his ambition, his corrosive energy, and for such outrages to the prerogatives of private enterprise as actually lowering the price of gasoline through economies effected by a state-owned monopoly. And when he died, in the crash of his private airplane, there was some question whether he died by accident or by carefully concealed design.

The mystery of Mattei's life and death, and of the investigation following the death, is the subject of Francesco Rosi's "The Mattei Affair," co-winner of the Grand Prize last year at Cannes, which opened yesterday at the Little Carnegie Theater. It is a subject not too unlike the life and death of Orson Welles's Charles Foster Kane, or of the famous Sicilian bandit who is the elusive hero of Rosi's own fine early movie, "Salvatore Giuliano" (1961).

Elusiveness was virtually the key to "Salvatore Giuliano," and, in a simple but excellent stylistic stroke, Rosi photographed usually from a distance and from the back. I'm not at all sure that elusiveness is the key to Enrico Mattei, though I think that Rosi rather wishes it were and is sometimes at a loss in treating a figure so aggressively interested in explaining himself. "The Mattei Affair" seems scrupulously accurate at least to the events of its hero's life, and fairly often—as when Mattei demonstrates an offshore oil-drilling rig or inspects his gas stations or hotels—it resembles an awkwardly dramatized biographical documentary.

But occasionally it comes brilliantly alive. When Mattei battles over an elegant lunch with an American oil magnate, or when, on the last day of his life, he addresses the cheering people of a Sicilian town and then, one by one, each of his associates begs off flying home with him—the "Mattei Affair" suggests the superb movie it does not finally become. Such sequences owe a good deal to the acting talents of Gian Maria Volonte, who complicates the character of Mattei, sometimes refining him, sometimes broadening him, sometimes pushing him into a public-relations caricature of the industrial visionary, which he must also have been.

The film's time ranges at will from Mattei's emergence in 1945 to the investigation of his death still continuing in 1970—but it centers on a day in autumn of 1962, as it keeps returning to the field outside Milan where the bits and pieces of its hero are being collected for burial. In themselves these remains are nothing. And as emblems for the life that preceded them and the intrigues that follow, they do not seem to have the power to crystallize Francesco Rosi's potent magic or to vitalize this immensely honorable but unsuccessful movie.

The Cast

THE MATTEI AFFAIR, directed by Francesco Rosi; story by Mr. Rosi and Tonino Guerra; screenplay by Mr. Rosi and Mr. Guerra in collaboration with Nerio Minuzzo and Tito de Stefano; editor, Ruggero Mastroianni; music, Piero Piccionl; produced by Franco Cristaldi; a Cinema International Corporation presentation; released by Paramount Pictures. At the Little Carnegie Theater, 57th Street, east of Seventh Avenue. Running time: 118 minutes. This film is classified R.

Enrico Mattei . . . . . Glan Maria Volonte

Journalist . . . . . Luigi Equarzina

McHale . . . . . Peter Baldwin

2d Journalist . . . . . Renato Romano

Minister . . . . . Franco Graziosi

Engineer Ferrari . . . . . Gianfranco Ombuen

Official of Inquiry Commission . . . . . Elio Jotta

Mrs. Matei . . . . . Edda Ferronao

Bertuzzi . . . . . Luciano Colitti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the same program and had exactly the same reaction that you did.  And I remembered that the name Mattei had been brought up in Buchanan's book.

Perhaps the death of Mattei deserves additional research.

Changed your tune a bit. When I originally posted information from Thomas Buchanan you responded by saying you did not believe anything said by a member of the American Communist Party.

Buchanan had been a member of the American Communist Party in the 1930s. As he was not willing to name other former members and he was sacked from his job with the Washington Evening Star and blacklisted. This is why he was forced to live in France. Buchanan approves of this sort of thing, that is why I find his political views so repulsive.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuchananT.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2846

Therefore I don’t suspect you are really interested in Buchanan’s theories. However, for the benefit of other members, Buchanan claimed (pages 157-192) that the Texas oil industry was behind both the deaths of JFK and Enrico Mattei.

During the Second World War Mattei was one of Italy’s leading anti-fascist political figures. He was the head of two Italian partisan groups fighting the Nazis in Europe. Unlike most Italian politicians he decided to fight fascism rather than embrace it.

After the war Mattei was elected to the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Most of the partisan leaders in Europe were elected into official positions after the war. This caused great concern for the OSS and later the CIA. As a result funds meant for rebuilding the European economy (the Marshall Plan) was redirected into a covert operation against left-wing politicians in Europe. This all emerged during the Frank Church investigation into the CIA. Tom Braden, the head of this programme, International Organizations Division (IOD), confessed in June 1975:

It never had to account for the money it spent except to the President if the President wanted to know how much money it was spending. But otherwise the funds were not only unaccountable, they were unvouchered, so there was really no means of checking them - "unvouchered funds" meaning expenditures that don't have to be accounted for.... If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe - a Labour leader - suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... I don't mean to imply that there were a great many of them that were handed out as Christmas presents. They were handed out for work well performed or in order to perform work well.... Politicians in Europe, particularly right after the war, got a lot of money from the CIA....

Since it was unaccountable, it could hire as many people as it wanted. It never had to say to any committee - no committee said to it - "You can only have so many men." It could do exactly as it pleased. It made preparations therefore for every contingency. It could hire armies; it could buy banks. There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war - the secret war.... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first.

Journalists were a target, labor unions a particular target - that was one of the activities in which the communists spent the most money. They set up a successful communist labor union in France right after the war. We countered it with Force Ouvriere. They set up this very successful communist labor union in Italy, and we countered it with another union.... We had a vast project targeted on the intellectuals - "the battle for Picasso's mind," if you will.

This included bribing political leaders in Europe to move to the right. Many succumbed to this policy. However, Mattei was one of those who was not corruptible. He was placed in charge of an agency administrating the Italian oil resources. He was a great success and ENI, the name of the Italian nationalized oil industry, grew and grew.

ENI moved into other areas of Italian life. It opened a chain of restaurants, motels, filling stations, newspapers, power stations.

The following appeared in Harper’s Magazine (March, 1961): “Mattei has become the symbol of a vigorous new state socialism of the type which has longed appealed to the logical Latin mind. He carries the banner for a large, perhaps a majority, group of Italians who think that by a judicious use of public monies some of the grave short-comings of capitalism can be corrected.”

Mattei’s success posed a serious threat to the CIA’s policy of halting the growth of socialism in Europe. He also posed a serious threat to the American oil industry. This became an even more serious problem when Mattei began negotiating deals with the Soviet Union, Iran, India, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia and the Sudan.

The oil companies of the world were immediately up in arms against him. They were especially concerned by the deal with the Soviet Union. This would allow ENI to undercut the oil prices being charged by the Texas oil industry.

In October, 1962, Mattei took off in his plane from a business trip in Sicily. The plane exploded in mid-air. Rumours began to circulate that it was a Mafia/CIA/Texas Oil Industry combined operation.

Buchanan argues in his book that this was the same combination that killed JFK (as a result of the threatened cut in the oil depreciation allowance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattei must have really annoyed the Texas oil producers. Quoting more from Buchanan's book:

"When the war was won, he was elected to the Italian Chamber of Deputies and placed in charge of Italian oil resources. He was ordered simply to take care of liquidating its' affairs; the plan was to turn back this corporation (ENI), organised by Mussolini, to some private group of oil producers. Mattei tried instead to run it at a profit. So successful was he that the Government allowed it to remain nationalised, despite the outrage of foreign oil companies who felt it represented unfair competition. He brought the price of petrol down and accordingly, though hated by the rival oil producers who were forced to meet his prices, he was joyfully applauded by consumers.

Italy, despite Mattei's substantial natural gas discoveries the Po Valley, is far from self-sufficient in fuels; the Italians formerly bought oil, like other countries, in the Middle East. The formula was long established, by a "gentlemen's agreement", that the profits of oil exploration in the Middle East were to be divided on a 50:50 ratio between the native governments and the foreign oil companies. To win concessions for Italian oil, Mattei disregarded this convention. He signed a pact with Iran which gave Iran 75% of the profits and followed this with similar concessions in India, Egypt, Tunisia, Morrocco, Somalia and the Sudan. The oil companies of the world were immediately up in arms against him. If Mattei had been foolish enough to go to Texas, they would certainly have lynched him".

Buchanan also notes that there had been several earlier attempts at sabotage. He had often recieved death threats but disregarded them and pursued policies which he believed were in the interests of the Italian people. His brother, and a majority of the Italian people, believe he was murdered. So do I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

Changed your tune a bit. When I originally posted information from Thomas Buchanan you responded by saying you did not believe anything said by a member of the American Communist Party.

John, you understated it a bit. I said one could not believe anything written by a Communist (not just American communists). By that I meant a person willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party. Because a Communist member must be willing to subvert the truth to the "party line".

This simply means you must verify everything a Communist says. A Communist could make a true statement if it is consistent with the then-current party position. My point is that one ought not accord a Communist writer a presumption of honesty as one would accord, say, a socialist or a Republican.

The same thing is not necessarily true of a former communist, particularly one who has renounced communism, whether one has moved to the left or to the right.

I would accord the same degree of careful scrutiny to a writer who also has a history of making false statements. Let us take Richard Sprague. We know he made a false statement linking me to the attempted assassination of George Wallace, which he falsely attributed to William Turner, and we know he made a false statement linking Harry Dean to the Kennedy assassination. I would therefore not trust a word of Sprague's writing without verifying it. And of course his book offers few sources for the broad claims he makes.

The fact that I think the Mattei matter may merit investigation ought to make everyone (yourself included) understand that I am not blindly wedded to a single scenario based on a political agenda. (And I want to reiterate that several prominent leftists support the Castro scenario.)

You wrote: Therefore I don’t suspect you are really interested in Buchanan’s theories.

John, respectfully, does not the above statement violate the following which you established as a rule of this Forum:

Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned.

Why would you think I was not interested in the Mattei issue when I, like Pat, immediately remewmbered that Buchanan had suggested a link between the Mattei death and I also took the time to do some research on Mattei on the Internet?

I do not, as you know, believe that LBJ was assassinated as a result of efforts by the Texas oil industry. I find it far more likely that he was assassinated by either pro-Castro or anti-Castro Cubans (and that of course was the mileui in which LHO was operating). Even if American oil interests were behind the assassination of Mattei, that does not, of course, mean such interests sponsored the Kennedy assassination. Nevertheless, if Texas oil interests did participate in the murder of Mattei, that certainly is an fact that must be entered into the equation. It would, for instance, make me reconsider my position that Texas oil money would not organize an assassination purely for economic gain.

The question, then, is whether there is any actual evidence that links the murder of Mattei to Texas oil interests, or if it is just Buchanan bluster (because that was indeed the Communist position). (Again understand the Communist position is not necessarily wrong but it must be very carefully scrutinized and justified.) I think it is an important point whether actual evidence of such a link exists.

You argued (posited? wondered?) if the CIA murdered Mattei because his brand of socialism was such a threat to the CIA's strategy for Europe. If this thought is based solely on the possible motive of the CIA, then let me make the following comment: JFK believed that in some cases democratic socialism presented the best obstacle to communism, particularly in Europe. If JFK was right, and if the Communists saw things from the same perspective, then the Communists had a motive to kill Mattei as well as the CIA.

So the bottom line is that I think we have to go beyond motive to the actual evidence of the (alleged?) murder. What evidence exists that Mattei was murdered, and, if so, by whom?

This might relate to the person who I believe the History Channel suggested had admitted to participating in the murder.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

Changed your tune a bit. When I originally posted information from Thomas Buchanan you responded by saying you did not believe anything said by a member of the American Communist Party.

John, you understated it a bit.  I said one could not believe anything written by a Communist (not just American communists).  By that I meant a person willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party.  Because a Communist member must be willing to subvert the truth to the "party line".

Rather like being a Republican, then.  You must remember the Ziegler-ism that the truth in the Nixon White House is "no longer operative?"  Or, how about "Saddam's been trying to get uraniam from Niger?"  Or, "Saddam has WMD?"  Or, what about my personal favourite, "Saddam could launch a warhead against us in only 45 minutes?" 

Good thing Republicans said those things, or I might have moments of doubt about their veracity....

This simply means you must verify everything a Communist says.  A Communist could make a true statement if it is consistent with the then-current party position.  My point is that one ought not accord a Communist writer a presumption of honesty as one would accord, say, a socialist or a Republican.

Why extend it to either of them?  Why not just presume that it's all propaganda to advance a cause until it resonates within your head and heart?  Or do you simply put your brain on auto-pilot because you're listening to one of your own?  If so, it would help explain a whole lot about the naivete behind your posts here. 

The same thing is not necessarily true of a former communist, particularly one who has renounced communism, whether one has moved to the left or to the right.

I would accord the same degree of careful scrutiny to a writer who also has a history of making false statements.  Let us take Richard Sprague.  We know he made a false statement linking me to the attempted assassination of George Wallace,

  No, for the umpteenth G-D time, he didn't!  Sprague said Bremer had been receiving money from a group with which Segretti, Cassini and Gratz were associated.  [The Republican party would qualify as such a group.]  We don't know that's false; only that you deny it.

which he falsely attributed to William Turner,

We do know that Turner has denied it, presumably with cause.

and we know he made a false statement linking Harry Dean to the Kennedy assassination.  I would therefore not trust a word of Sprague's writing without verifying it.  And of course his book offers few sources for the broad claims he makes.

Must be a Communist then, huh?  But, jeez louise, Tim... what if Sprague was a registered Republican all his life?  What happens to your theory then?  [sprague's book is incredibly deficient in the footnote department, but so are many others that you cite regularly.]

The fact that I think the Mattei matter may merit investigation ought to make everyone (yourself included) understand that I am not blindly wedded to a single scenario based on a political agenda.  (And I want to reiterate that several prominent leftists support the Castro scenario.)

But if they're too far to the left, then aren't you being suckered by... Commies?  [Care to name your leftish fellow-travelers, Tim?  As a Republican, you shouldn't have any trouble naming names, as was the case in the good ol' HUAC days.]

You wrote:  Therefore I don’t suspect you are really interested in Buchanan’s theories.

John, respectfully, does not the above statement violate the following which you established as a rule of this Forum:

Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned.

There's no question about your motives here, Tim.  Hence, no need to question them.

Why would you think I was not interested in the Mattei issue when I, like Pat, immediately remewmbered that Buchanan had suggested a link between the Mattei death and I also took the time to do some research on Mattei on the Internet?

I do not, as you know, believe that LBJ was assassinated as a result of efforts by the Texas oil industry. 

Well, that's a relief.  I thought he'd died of old age, but I guess I must have been reading Communist propaganda instead of good Republican coverage of the event.

I find it far more likely that he was assassinated by either pro-Castro or anti-Castro Cubans (and that of course was the mileui in which LHO was operating).

That'll teach him to tell CIA to stop trying to kill Castro.  Funny how they could make that old-age-cause-of-death thing so convincing.

Even if American oil interests were behind the assassination of Mattei, that does not, of course, mean such interests sponsored the Kennedy assassination.

Hell, no.  Good Republican oil men might kill them damn feriners, but they'd draw the line at killing a US President, even if it offered unprecedented economic gain.  Just like CIA, don'tcha know?

Nevertheless, if Texas oil interests did participate in the murder of Mattei, that certainly is an fact that must be entered into the equation.  It would, for instance, make me reconsider my position that Texas oil money would not organize an assassination purely for economic gain.

Like the old song says, "Reconsider baby!"

The question, then, is whether there is any actual evidence that links the murder of Mattei to Texas oil interests, or if it is just Buchanan bluster (because that was indeed the Communist position).  (Again understand the Communist position is not necessarily wrong but it must be very carefully scrutinized and justified.)  I think it is an important point whether actual evidence of such a link exists.

When we find a Republican who says the same thing Buchanan did, we'll let you know.

You argued (posited? wondered?) if the CIA murdered Mattei because his brand of socialism was such a threat to the CIA's strategy for Europe. If this thought is based solely on the possible motive of the CIA, then let me make the following comment:  JFK believed that in some cases democratic socialism presented the best obstacle to communism, particularly in Europe.  If JFK was right, and if the Communists saw things from the same perspective, then the Communists had a motive to kill Mattei as well as the CIA.

No, the Commies only killed Kennedy.  You must have mixed up your index cards, Tim.  Do try to be more careful.

So the bottom line is that I think we have to go beyond motive to the actual evidence of the (alleged?) murder.  What evidence exists that Mattei was murdered, and, if so, by whom?

This might relate to the person who I believe the History Channel suggested had admitted to participating in the murder.

A confession might be a good place to start your investigation, Tim.  Just make sure the confessing participant is a paid-up dues-paying Republican, or his word means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

Changed your tune a bit. When I originally posted information from Thomas Buchanan you responded by saying you did not believe anything said by a member of the American Communist Party.

John, you understated it a bit.  I said one could not believe anything written by a Communist (not just American communists).  By that I meant a person willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party.  Because a Communist member must be willing to subvert the truth to the "party line".

Rather like being a Republican, then.  You must remember the Ziegler-ism that the truth in the Nixon White House is "no longer operative?"  Or, how about "Saddam's been trying to get uraniam from Niger?"  Or, "Saddam has WMD?"  Or, what about my personal favourite, "Saddam could launch a warhead against us in only 45 minutes?" 

Good thing Republicans said those things, or I might have moments of doubt about their veracity....

This simply means you must verify everything a Communist says.  A Communist could make a true statement if it is consistent with the then-current party position.  My point is that one ought not accord a Communist writer a presumption of honesty as one would accord, say, a socialist or a Republican.

Why extend it to either of them?  Why not just presume that it's all propaganda to advance a cause until it resonates within your head and heart?  Or do you simply put your brain on auto-pilot because you're listening to one of your own?  If so, it would help explain a whole lot about the naivete behind your posts here. 

The same thing is not necessarily true of a former communist, particularly one who has renounced communism, whether one has moved to the left or to the right.

I would accord the same degree of careful scrutiny to a writer who also has a history of making false statements.  Let us take Richard Sprague.  We know he made a false statement linking me to the attempted assassination of George Wallace,

  No, for the umpteenth G-D time, he didn't!  Sprague said Bremer had been receiving money from a group with which Segretti, Cassini and Gratz were associated.  [The Republican party would qualify as such a group.]  We don't know that's false; only that you deny it.

which he falsely attributed to William Turner,

We do know that Turner has denied it, presumably with cause.

and we know he made a false statement linking Harry Dean to the Kennedy assassination.  I would therefore not trust a word of Sprague's writing without verifying it.  And of course his book offers few sources for the broad claims he makes.

Must be a Communist then, huh?  But, jeez louise, Tim... what if Sprague was a registered Republican all his life?  What happens to your theory then?  [sprague's book is incredibly deficient in the footnote department, but so are many others that you cite regularly.]

The fact that I think the Mattei matter may merit investigation ought to make everyone (yourself included) understand that I am not blindly wedded to a single scenario based on a political agenda.  (And I want to reiterate that several prominent leftists support the Castro scenario.)

But if they're too far to the left, then aren't you being suckered by... Commies?  [Care to name your leftish fellow-travelers, Tim?  As a Republican, you shouldn't have any trouble naming names, as was the case in the good ol' HUAC days.]

You wrote:  Therefore I don’t suspect you are really interested in Buchanan’s theories.

John, respectfully, does not the above statement violate the following which you established as a rule of this Forum:

Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned.

There's no question about your motives here, Tim.  Hence, no need to question them.

Why would you think I was not interested in the Mattei issue when I, like Pat, immediately remewmbered that Buchanan had suggested a link between the Mattei death and I also took the time to do some research on Mattei on the Internet?

I do not, as you know, believe that LBJ was assassinated as a result of efforts by the Texas oil industry. 

Well, that's a relief.  I thought he'd died of old age, but I guess I must have been reading Communist propaganda instead of good Republican coverage of the event.

I find it far more likely that he was assassinated by either pro-Castro or anti-Castro Cubans (and that of course was the mileui in which LHO was operating).

That'll teach him to tell CIA to stop trying to kill Castro.  Funny how they could make that old-age-cause-of-death thing so convincing.

Even if American oil interests were behind the assassination of Mattei, that does not, of course, mean such interests sponsored the Kennedy assassination.

Hell, no.  Good Republican oil men might kill them damn feriners, but they'd draw the line at killing a US President, even if it offered unprecedented economic gain.  Just like CIA, don'tcha know?

Nevertheless, if Texas oil interests did participate in the murder of Mattei, that certainly is an fact that must be entered into the equation.  It would, for instance, make me reconsider my position that Texas oil money would not organize an assassination purely for economic gain.

Like the old song says, "Reconsider baby!"

The question, then, is whether there is any actual evidence that links the murder of Mattei to Texas oil interests, or if it is just Buchanan bluster (because that was indeed the Communist position).  (Again understand the Communist position is not necessarily wrong but it must be very carefully scrutinized and justified.)  I think it is an important point whether actual evidence of such a link exists.

When we find a Republican who says the same thing Buchanan did, we'll let you know.

You argued (posited? wondered?) if the CIA murdered Mattei because his brand of socialism was such a threat to the CIA's strategy for Europe. If this thought is based solely on the possible motive of the CIA, then let me make the following comment:  JFK believed that in some cases democratic socialism presented the best obstacle to communism, particularly in Europe.  If JFK was right, and if the Communists saw things from the same perspective, then the Communists had a motive to kill Mattei as well as the CIA.

No, the Commies only killed Kennedy.  You must have mixed up your index cards, Tim.  Do try to be more careful.

So the bottom line is that I think we have to go beyond motive to the actual evidence of the (alleged?) murder.  What evidence exists that Mattei was murdered, and, if so, by whom?

This might relate to the person who I believe the History Channel suggested had admitted to participating in the murder.

A confession might be a good place to start your investigation, Tim.  Just make sure the confessing participant is a paid-up dues-paying Republican, or his word means nothing.

I did a brief search on Google under "Enrico Mattei JFK assassination" and found this. I found it to be interesting although I would take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.stelling.nl/peteredel/synopsis2.pedel.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept Tim's word that he's sincerely interested in this topic. Would still love to read someone's translation of one of the many Italian articles about Gaetano Ianni's confession.

Meanwhile, I re-read Daniel Yergin's account of Mattei's death in The Prize. He says the plane crashed 7 miles short of a runway in a rainstorm and was almost positively an accident. He also says the only passenger with him was Time magazine's Rome bureau chief. Perhaps someone could find Time's next issue after Oct. 27 1962 and see what they had to say about the death of one of their own.

One of the things that makes me suspicious is that Mattei was making deals with the Soviet Union. As we now know, the United States' game plan going back to the fifties was to lure the Soviets into an arms race and then spend them into oblivion. Tim's hero Reagan only performed the coup-de-grace, albeit with a quite cooperative Gorbachev. Since this was the case, Mattei's game plan of cutting a deal with the Soviets and using them to undercut Arab oil may have been suicide. I don't see any way the U.S. would sit back and allow some paisan, whose ass was saved by our forces during WWII, to come along and teach the Soviets how to walk economically speaking, while simultaneously de-stabilizing the mid-east. Wasn't gonna happen. If Mattei wasn't killed by either the CIA, the mafia, or U.S. oil interests, or some combination of the three, it was only a matter of time. IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Mattei wasn't killed by either the CIA, the mafia, or U.S. oil interests, or some combination of the three, it was only a matter of time.  IMHO

Pat, I'm not quite sure if you did read my post or you just ignored it. ;)

IMO it shows at least a connection between the CIA, their forces "Stay behind" and the organisation Gladio (the italien branch, but controlled by the same people). If Gladio was behind the assassination of Mattei, which was the conclusion of the investigation, then I think we can assume some involvement from the CIA as well.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Mattei wasn't killed by either the CIA, the mafia, or U.S. oil interests, or some combination of the three, it was only a matter of time.  IMHO

Pat, I'm not quite sure if you did read my post or you just ignored it. :D

IMO it shows at least a connection between the CIA, their forces "Stay behind" and the organisation Gladio (the italien branch, but controlled by the same people). If Gladio was behind the assassination of Mattei, which was the conclusion of the investigation, then I think we can assume some involvement from the CIA as well.

George

Thanks, George. I guess I'm a little confused because Ianni supposedly said it was the mafia, on behalf of American businessman. The history channel program made no mention of Gladio. I've read elsewhere that Mattei owned a newspaper in Milan called Il Giorno. Does anyone know what conclusions Mattei's own paper came to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...