Skip to comments.
BOOK REVIEW: How did Patton die?
washingtontimes.com ^
| October 6, 2014
| Wes Vernon
Posted on 10/07/2014 7:55:14 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: Berlin_Freeper
My father always claimed that genuine military heroes like Patton and MacArthur had to be neutralized because they would prove too much of an embarrassment to political generals like George Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower and their sponsors.
2
posted on
10/07/2014 7:59:20 AM PDT
by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: Berlin_Freeper
I hate to be the spoiler, but since O’Reilley keeps talking about it ( I just heard his interview at the Imus in the Morning drive time radio program ), this is what it is in a nutshell:
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.
His death ended all that.
3
posted on
10/07/2014 7:59:33 AM PDT
by
SeekAndFind
(If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
To: Berlin_Freeper
.
I'm familiar with the allegations.
However, Bill O'Reilly is simply trying to "sell anything" to a specific (still with money) demographic age group ...
1) Americans
2) Men
3) WWII vets
4) Retired, with NOTHING to do ...
Actually, it's shameless ...
.
To: Berlin_Freeper
The problem with this theory is that Patton was not particularly popular in America and posed no threat to the establishment. Certainly much less so than MacArthur did during the Korean War.
IOW, I just don’t see any reason why Patton was important enough to justify killing him. He could be fired or “promoted” to a meaningless job in the Pentagon with zero political repercussions.
5
posted on
10/07/2014 8:01:25 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Perception wins most of the battles. Reality wins ALL the wars.)
To: SeekAndFind
.
Nobody with any intelligence ... especially Patton ...
would ever advocate invading the USSR ...
especially after (arguably) the BEST military in the world (the German Army in 1941) has just failed ...
.
To: Patton@Bastogne
RE: especially after (arguably) the BEST military in the world (the German Army in 1941) has just failed ...
The best military? They were defeated by the allies and Hitler was a micro-manager.
7
posted on
10/07/2014 8:04:27 AM PDT
by
SeekAndFind
(If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
To: Berlin_Freeper
To: Patton@Bastogne
Patton just wanted to run them out of Europe and not divide up the countries.
To: Berlin_Freeper
My husband is reading this right now and thoroughly enjoying it. He didn’t know a whole lot about Patton and he’s impressed. As far as O’Reilly’s other books, eh not a big fan.
10
posted on
10/07/2014 8:11:02 AM PDT
by
surrey
To: SeekAndFind
.
No ... the German Army in 1941 was indeed the best military in the world.
Just go back and ask Churchill and the defeated French and Polish Prime Ministers.
You are correct that they were ultimately defeated ...
however, it was TERRIBLE stategy (USSR invasion "Barbarosa") and Hitler's micromanaging that LOST the war for Germany.
With the "brilliant" advantage of hindsight, were I the Germans, I would have waited until 1944 to start the war ...
not with a Polish-Frech invasion ...
but rather sending atomic bombs (either by bomber or V7 missiles) to a dozen English-French-Russian cities in a suprise attack ...
Manchester, Marsellis, Scappa Flow, Kiev, Crimea, Gibraltar, Crimea, etc ...
And then British Prime Minister "Chamberlain" would have given Hitler ANYTHING he wanted.
Of course, the NAZIs needed to be exterminated, and the Great Recession needed to end, too ...
.
To: SeekAndFind
The best military? They were defeated by the allies and Hitler was a micro-manager. In other words, they took on the world and came close to winning even though their leader was incompetent.
To: Patton@Bastogne
Clearly the Nazis were not the best military in the world. Yes, they had hardened brave troops. Yes, they had excellent military equipment. The political and military leadership was their Achilles Heel. Still to be the best requires all three.
In the end is there any argument that the US and Brittan had the best militaries?
I contend that both Germany and Japan had too small a military and limited natural resources to pull off such a grandiose scheme with so many far-flung fronts, which led the Nazis to adopt less than stellar allies and the Japs basically being terrorists.
13
posted on
10/07/2014 8:20:58 AM PDT
by
X-spurt
(CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
To: SeekAndFind
Patton was assassinated by Stalins minions because he was very close to convincing the powers that be to invade the USSR after the AXIS powers were defeated.Sorry, but the theory is ludicrous. The American people would have been almost unanimously opposed to such a war, and the soldiers would have been very difficult indeed to get motivated to fight another war after just winning one and thinking they're about to go home.
Also, the notion that defeating the Red Army was a realistic idea is pretty darn silly.
To be sure, we had The Bomb, but we had very few of them and wouldn't have a large number for quite some time.
14
posted on
10/07/2014 8:22:04 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Perception wins most of the battles. Reality wins ALL the wars.)
To: Berlin_Freeper
Read a lot on Patton. But O’Reilly still thinks Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald.
15
posted on
10/07/2014 8:22:52 AM PDT
by
longfellow
(Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
To: SeekAndFind
And that view is nonsense. No one in his right mind would have invaded the USSR in 1945. The US CAPPED its infantry divisions at 89. The Soviets put 100 divisions into a SINGLE offensive. Already there was resistance by GIs and Marines about going to Japan---as "Band of Brothers" points out when Ambrose interviewed the guys about the "point" system.
People just have a tough time believing that "sh@t happens."
As for the comment about MacArthur and Patton vs. Ike, Eisenhower did a fantastic job of placating the Brits while making sure that everyone stayed on focus. And while MacArthur was exceptional, the greatest "general" of the Pacific in terms of casualties per # of men committed was an admiral, Nimitz, who had in his sector Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and yet still lost fewer men proportionally than did Mac.
16
posted on
10/07/2014 8:26:29 AM PDT
by
LS
('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
To: Patton@Bastogne
I agree. I think we are all awaiting O’Blowhard’s next book, “Killing O’Reilly.”
17
posted on
10/07/2014 8:27:10 AM PDT
by
LS
('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
To: Patton@Bastogne
Bingo. And especially when the Brits and French and what was left of the other allied “armies” were not going to fight one minute more.
18
posted on
10/07/2014 8:27:45 AM PDT
by
LS
('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
To: longfellow
He was. There is ZERO evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed him.
To: SeekAndFind
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson