Patton murdered?

[BudW]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-new-book.html

[DRichards1968]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-new-book.html

Certainly not an impossibility. He made a lot of enemies in the last months before his death, and Truman was genuinely afraid that Patton would provoke war with the Soviets.

[Johnny W]

MacArthur angered Truman far more than Patton did, and didn't get killed. I seriously doubt Truman would have Patton killed when all he had to do was relieve him and ship him home. And Bradley, Eisenhower, and Patton were all friends, or at least they were at some point. I can't see either Bradley or Ike being involved in such a thing.

[DRichards1968]

MacArthur angered Truman far more than Patton did, and didn't get killed. I seriously doubt Truman would have Patton killed when all he had to do was relieve him and ship him home. And Bradley, Eisenhower, and Patton were all friends, or at least they were at some point. I can't see either Bradley or Ike being involved in such a thing.

I think you're right. It seems a very far fetched idea; not impossible, but far fetched.

[GraniteForge]

MacArthur angered Truman far more than Patton did, and didn't get killed. I seriously doubt Truman would have Patton killed when all he had to do was relieve him and ship him home. And Bradley, Eisenhower, and Patton were all friends, or at least they were at some point. I can't see either Bradley or Ike being involved in such a thing.

I think you're right. It seems a very far fetched idea; not impossible, but far fetched.

Patton and MacArthur were both decorated veterans, and both wealthy aristocrats. They both had social and political influence beyond their uniforms. Both opposed Truman's policies in some ways.

But there were also some practical differences:

Truman had a personal, visceral connection to Europe. He took great interest in US activities and future plans there, while Asia to him was a distant area of minor focus.

Both commands had the potential to greatly enrich both the commanders, and their nation. MacArthur personally received more than a million dollars for his defense of the Philippines, but he was unable to recover the many tens of millions more -- mostly in bullion and gems -- hidden by the Japanese during the Occupation, most of which seems to have been secretly recovered by Japanese construction firms from the mid-1950s to the late 1970s.

Patton, on the other hand, is not reported to have received any personal payouts for his leadership during the war, but he did control billions of dollars worth of recovered cash, bullion, gems, jewelry, art, etc. No accurate accounting of the total Nazi loot was ever made, but it is documented that Patton strongly -- and forcefully -- opposed several early suggested schemes for its division, before the vast amount of booty was made public.

There were many schools of thought on the issue within the government, most advocating keeping the treasure secret, and using it for either Allied, or just US, or just US Army, activities in Europe, or for general anti-Communist activity, or even using it to place pro-American candidates and/or spies in Western countries. One group proposed secretly splitting it up among the Allies, in some proportion having to do with their participation in the war.

Patton was, reputedly, completely opposed to the idea of total secrecy regarding the caches, and was also opposed to splitting it in any way with the USSR. It was the area commander, Patton, who allowed Allied press into the mines that the Nazis had used for secure storage, and he did so before a decision had been handed down by Eisenhower. It was Patton who first suggested that the vast treasure collected by the Nazis should be used for the to relif and repatriation of the millions of displaced persons who roamed Europe after the end of the war, and also used to rebuild the shattered continent. It should be noted that after Patton's death, the multiple layers of heavy, regular army guards that he placed over the caches were withdrawn, that most of the treasure was never properly inventoried, and that even much of what had been documented by media during the period of Patton's oversight subsequently disappeared.

[RustyBattleship]

The book is a bunch of hogwash. Most expose' books are.

The initial cause of Patton's neck injury was by a US Army truck, driven by an Enlisted man with a hangover, plowing into Patton's limo.

It was decided to send Patton back to the United States for better treatment. The cause of his death was that the ambulance he was in carrying him to the airport was hit by a civilian truck.

No bullets involved. Just bad drivers.

[Gun Grape]

Glanced over the "Target Patton book at BAM last night. On the last page the author admits that this is a lot of supposition with no facts or evidence to back it up.

Just the little that I read seemed more like a National Enquirer story than a serious proposition.

[beez26]

Certainly not an impossibility. He made a lot of enemies in the last months before his death, and Truman was genuinely afraid that Patton would provoke war with the Soviets.

Yes but what Patton said about the soviets was he totally wrong??? is the biggest question. It sure would have save us alot of money and time in the future.

[Triple C]

Yes but what Patton said about the soviets was he totally wrong??? is the biggest question. It sure would have save us alot of money and time in the future.

Doubtful. A war with the Red Army on the peak STAVKA's form is hardly desirable.

[Johnny W]

Yes but what Patton said about the soviets was he totally wrong??? is the biggest question. It sure would have save us alot of money and time in the future.

But would have killed a lot of people that didn't need to die. Didn't Patton think that war between the US and the Soviets was inevitable? If so, he seems to have been proven wrong on that point.

[chakos]

At the time, even if the allies had a small amount of nukes nothing would have been able to stop the Soviets from reaching the Atlantic if they decided to keep going. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

[Johnny W]

At the time, even if the allies had a small amount of nukes nothing would have been able to stop the Soviets from reaching the Atlantic if they decided to keep going. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

Don't know if I agree. Granted, the Soviets outnumbered the US and British forces 2-1, but the US had more combat aircraft all by itself, not to mention what the British had. US and British ground attack aircraft would have made life hard for the Soviets. I think the Western Allies could have stopped the Soviets at the Rhine river and held on for a long time.

Throw in the nuclear equation, and US B29's able to hit Soviet factories in the eastern USSR, and its an iffy proposition for the Soviets.

[Dreadnought]

Glanced over the "Target Patton book at BAM last night. On the last page the author admits that this is a lot of supposition with no facts or evidence to back it up.

Just the little that I read seemed more like a National Enquirer story than a serious proposition.

Agreed Grape, IMO if he was chosen to be assasinated whomever constructed it could have done it more creative,believeable ways (battlefield shot or other) then a car crash and I dont think (please do correct me) that the US has ever assinated any officers especially ones along the ranks of Patton. I wrote it off.

[chakos]

Don't know if I agree. Granted, the Soviets outnumbered the US and British forces 2-1, but the US had more combat aircraft all by itself, not to mention what the British had. US and British ground attack aircraft would have made life hard for the Soviets. I think the Western Allies could have stopped the Soviets at the Rhine river and held on for a long time.

Throw in the nuclear equation, and US B29's able to hit Soviet factories in the eastern USSR, and its an iffy proposition for the Soviets.

Not only did Soviets have a numerical superiority they also had shorter supply lines and the capacity to absorb many more losses than the Allies. Also Soviet armor was generally much superior to Allied equipment. The Allies got lucky against the Nazis because although the Nazis had generally superior equipment it was lacking in numbers, the same would not apply to the Soviets.

Shermans where no match for T34/85s, ganging up on them was just not possible as they would be the ones outnumbering you. There where only limited numbers of Pershings and the Centurions where just coming into service, nowhere near in numbers enough to take down JS2/3 mass formations supported by frighteningly large amounts of artillery and rocket barrages. In regards to the Allied air advantage, i believe the Soviets would be able to at least achieve localised air superiority for their offensives, at worst case both air forces would fight each other to the point where they would have no influence on the land battle, handing the advantage to the Soviets.

The only wildcard would be the amount of nukes the allies would produce and wether the soviets themselves managed to produce any themselves.

[Triple C]

Chakos reply,

Not only did Soviets have a numerical superiority they also had shorter supply lines and the capacity to absorb many more losses than the Allies.

The Soviets sustained 28 million casaulties already and the quality of their rifle divisions was declining. The Red Armywas at the end of its mapower reserves and Moscow knew it.

Also Soviet armor was generally much superior to Allied equipment. The Allies got lucky against the Nazis because although the Nazis had generally superior equipment it was lacking in numbers, the same would not apply to the Soviets.

US armor systems beat the Nazis by both superior numbers and better combined-arms coordination. Russian armor has some advantages in the heavy class but manifestly was not better in the medium class.

Shermans where no match for T34/85s, ganging up on them was just not possible as they would be the ones outnumbering you.

Sherman 76 is easlily a match for T-34-85. Have you checked the specs? I am kinda doubting Sherman 75 would be substantially inferior to T-34-85 either. The low quality 47mm glacis plate is the achilles heel of the system.

There where only limited numbers of Pershings and the Centurions where just coming into service, nowhere near in numbers enough to take down JS2/3 mass formations supported by frighteningly large amounts of artillery and rocket barrages.

JS-II were heavy tanks organized in company sized "regiments". Artillery was the superlative US arm in WWII as well as airpower. I don't see Soviet Union's towed guns and slow artillery fire control method as better than the Americans.

In regards to the Allied air advantage, i believe the Soviets would be able to at least achieve localised air superiority for their offensives, at worst case both air forces would fight each other to the point where they would have no influence on the land battle, handing the advantage to the Soviets.

I do not believe that at all. The Soviets had equipment and men so far inferior that US local aerial superiority is almost guaranteed. Their men had 1/2 fly time and zero tactical training as per standard curriculum.