BOOK REVIEW: How did Patton die?

washingtontimes.com ^ | October 6, 2014 | Wes Vernon

[Berlin_Freeper]

“If you have read ‘Killing Kennedy,’” author and TV commentator Bill O'Reilly reminds his readers, “you know that Martin Dugard and I are not conspiracy theorists. We write from a factual point of view, with no axes to grind.”

Thus, in the afterword of “Killing Patton: The Strange Death of World War II’s Most Audacious General” Mr. O'Reilly seeks to assure those who have just read this most recent volume in the co-authored (with Mr. Dugard) “killing” series that their findings are simply facts, not hype.

Careful shoe-leather detective work buttressed by research, access to decades-old correspondence and never-before publicized interrogations of sources from around the world have combined to give readers “Killing Patton.”

[LS]

We address this "wait until later" strategy in our "Patriot's History of the Modern World, Vol. 1." It simply wouldn't work. Hitler was ALREADY using more resources than he had, and the Brits in 1941 were ALREADY substantially outproducing the Luftwaffe in air power---even without the Americans.

In hindsight Hitler's strategy was in fact brilliant, and the only one that stood a chance, mainly to "outrun" his resource consumption by constantly getting new pools of resources. However, what he did not count on was the massive # of foreign prisoner/workers Germany had to take in (see Adam Tooze, "Wages of Destruction") where Germany was having to produce so much food for workers to produce weapons that they had reached the end of their rope.

Tooze does a great job of showing that Germany's economy was already turning down in 1935; that once Hitler invaded the eastern Euro countries he had a bigger problem than buying resources, which was while he could take the resources, he didn't have the industrial capacity to process them (see the labor problem, above).

[LS]

Studies of fighting units, comparing like to like, are all over the map. The average GI was nowhere near as good as his Wehrmacht counterpart was in 1941. By 1944? Sure. By then, the US engineers and elite units were every bit as good as the SS. So, it's an uneven comparison because, in essence, the Germans had two years' of training on the US troops, but by 1944 they had suffered such losses and the training time had diminished that the Wehrmacht wasn't close to what it was in 1942.

You are right about the resource issue, and this ultimately killed both Germany and Japan---it drove Japan to attack Pearl and Hitler to invade Russia. But even once engaged in the war, the US only put 89 divisions into the field specifically so that its industrial capacity would be overwhelming, while the Germans put a much higher % of their male population in uniform, even after counting slave laborers. By comparison, however, the Soviets had about 200 divisions (!!!!) and could throw 100 divisions into a single battle. Even after the war, we couldn't hope to stop such numbers without a-bombs, which, thankfully, we had.

[Bringbackthedraft]

The rumor was that Patton had suggested to Eisenhower, that the momentum was on our side as was the weapon production. Added to that he had in his Army area Waffen SS divisions that were ready to be re-equipped for a counter attack to the east. Patton figured it was only a matter of time before we were in a war against communist Russia who was at that point in time exhausted. Also remember we already had the Atomic Bomb and a large force in the Pacific to handle the east end of Russia. But there is too much iffy history there. We had 14 million under arms and by 45’ they were tired, and wanted to go home. We had enough of war. It was time to go home, get married, buy a home in Levittown, raise kids, and hope and pray for world peace. So what we did get, was “duck and cover”, for 40 years and non stop brush fire wars around the Globe, waiting for the next Big one to take place. In regard to the German Army and the Waffen SS units, it was the best Army of it’s time, but they fought for all the wrong reasons, and were forced to follow the strategy of an E-4 (who gave rousing speeches) commanded the General Staff.

[Patton@Bastogne]

thanks ... great points ...

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

you're correct ...

The British and French were "fools" for screwing Germany after WWI ...

.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with your general conclusion about the unwisdom of invading Russian in 1945, or in 1941 for that matter, considering their favorable geographic position, the size of The Red Army, and the often underestimated great capacity of their industrial complex by the end of the war.

As to the quality of the German army, or the relative qualities of MacArthur and Nimitz, it is important to compare apples to apples. Certainly, the German Army unit for unit had superb cohesion and was effective on offense and defense. Considering the interference of Hitler, the staff work was superb. Their weapons were of the highest quality although not necessarily the greatest quantity. The Germans invented three-dimensional blitzkrieg warfare and revolutionized the art. In defense or offense against overwhelming odds in Russia, they fought brilliantly with some exceptions, the Kursk salient primary among them, inflicting disproportionate casualties with dwindling resources. If one takes Hitler out of the equation, the German military performed brilliantly. If one insists on considering his role with all the strategic mistakes and stubborn tactical mistakes, the judgment shifts. All in all, it is remarkable how much the Germans accomplished with very limited resources. For example, it was really only the tip of the spear that was armored, the bulk of German logistics were accomplished by horsepower when the Army departed from the rails.

As to Admiral Nimitz and MacArthur, I do not have the data at fingertips but it seems that the question is not only the number of casualties inflicted in battle but enemy numbers neutralized by island hopping, for which I believe credit should go to MacArthur and which would count heavily in his favor for the sheer numbers of Japanese soldiers left to starve and suffer from disease. There is also the question of who was more favored by Washington in the provision of war matériel. Whether justified or not the chronic complaint from MacArthur was that he was shortchanged and this may or may not be characterized as a kind of paranoia which led to secrecy and failure to coordinate and communicate with Washington, the dire harvest of which was experienced in Korea. Proponents of McArthur have consistently argued that he did more with less in the Southwest Pacific theater.

[Bringbackthedraft]

By comparison, however, the Soviets had about 200 divisions (!!!!) and could throw 100 divisions into a single battle. Even after the war, we couldn’t hope to stop such numbers without a-bombs, which, thankfully, we had. ............................................. Don’t forget, who was feeding the Russian Army, also providing thousands of locomotives, trucks, tanks, bombers,fighters,cannons, uniforms and everything associated with them. A little fact that history ignores. My parents worked in the US clothing industry, and they made uniforms and winter coats for the Russian Army.

[oh8eleven]

Patton was assassinated by Stalin’s minions because he was very close to convincing the powers that be to invade the USSR after the AXIS powers were defeated.
I doubt the "powers that be" would have been convinced by anything or anyone.
After VE day, they were too busy planning the invasion of Japan, which would have decimated our already decimated armed forces.
There wouldn't have been enough soldiers in the army left to invade a PX, let alone the USSR.

[longfellow]

Go read the book by Judyth Vary Baker.

[ealgeone]

are you on drugs? the germans...the best military in the world.

do some homework on productionin WWII. no way the soviets would have been able to keep up with us.

we had the bomb and means to deliver.

quit embarrasing yourself.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I have read dozens of books, newspaper articles, and watched several videos on the subject. There simply is no evidence. I don’t need to read another book full of distortions, lies, and innuendo.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***4) Retired, with NOTHING to do ... ***

What does a mighty General do
When the war is done when the war is through?
What does a mighty General do
So early in the Morning?

He’s got no job to go back to
When the War is done, when the war is through.
There’s just one thing that he can do
So early in the morning.

He can’t grow corn and he can’t grow wheat
When the war is done when the war is through

He can’t teach hogs to quick retreat
So early in the morning!

So what in the hell does a General do
When the war is done when the war is through’
HE WILL WAIT FOR A WAR TO GET INTO
SO EARLY IN THE MORNING.

From the movie CUSTER OF THE WEST.

[Mr. Lucky]

Patton died well after the end of the war and well after American demobilization was underway.

[ealgeone]

The US CAPPED its infantry divisions at 89. The Soviets put 100 divisions into a SINGLE offensive.

you make the error of equating a US division with a soviet division in terms of strength.

Avg US had 15,000 troops, a Soviet rifle division around 11-12,000.

In airpower alone the US produced 324,000 planes of all types compared to 136,233 for the Soviets.

In terms of tanks and spgs, US: 102,410, Soviets: 106,025

We produced over 2 million trucks. I don't have info on Soviet truck production but I know we transferred a significant number to the Russians.

Naval forces are not even close. Consider all the steel we poured into carriers, battleships, etc that would have been freed up for other production.

Let's not forget food production either. We fed a good part of the world in WWII. We cut that off from Russia and they're in trouble.

In terms of GDP in 1945 US: 1474, Soviets: 343

Plus, in 1945 we began tapping down our production whereas the Soviets continued theirs.

Bear in mind this doesn't count any of our allies, Britian, Canada, Australia and quite possibly Germans...especially those in east germany where the russians and abused every woman they could find.

The Russians didn't want the war with US.

[oh8eleven]

Patton died well after the end of the war
A) Patton died in December, 1945 ... just a few months after VJ Day.
B) What's your point?

[Gay State Conservative]

I’d have no problem believing credible evidence suggesting that Stalin killed Patton.

[Mr. Lucky]

Patton was no threat to the Soviets.

[elcid1970]

Stalin’s NKVD was so diabolically clever that they engineered a collision between a 2 1/2 ton truck & Patton’s staff car, in which there were no injuries to anyone in the car except for Patton, who suffered a broken neck & later died in hospital.

Patton’s death was ruled accidental. The NKVD officer in charge of the operation was awarded the Order of Lenin.

;^)

[oh8eleven]

Agree. He recognized the Reds as a formidable threat to world peace and, quite rightly, despised them.
But he (probably) never understood just how un-winnable a war with them truly was.

[ealgeone]

Why do you think a war with the ruskies wasn’t winnable?