dieseltaylor Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Blimey no one emntioned it to me before!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html The newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives. The death of General Patton in December 1945, is one of the enduring mysteries of the war era. Although he had suffered serious injuries in a car crash in Manheim, he was thought to be recovering and was on the verge of flying home. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I actually agree with this. In the immediate end of the war, Patton was a friend to my homeland Germany, and even stated that America had been on the wrong side,and should have been fighting the Russians. While this was probably just Patton's quite flamboyant way of making a point, I am sure there were many who preferred him to be dead because of his views...in much the same way as Hitler wanted Rommel dead,but preferred the death of a hero who could still be used for propaganda, rather than the execution of a traitor. As for Patton, dying "as the result of injuries sustained in an accident" left them their hero, without having to publicly contradict that hero's views of the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Holy COW. I never heard this before; and it sounds like credible statements. May have to get that book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 He didn't suffer "minor injuries" - he was paralysed from the neck down! Sensationalist tripe!:mad::cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 At last, CIA got something right. Anyone saying something like "we should be fighting with the nazis" against the people that decided WW2, deserves at least death or some holidays in siberian concentration camps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 He didn't suffer "minor injuries" - he was paralysed from the neck down! Sensationalist tripe!:mad::cool: I saw Diesel's quote saying serious injuries, not minor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 At last, CIA got something right. Anyone saying something like "we should be fighting with the nazis" against the people that decided WW2, deserves at least death or some holidays in siberian concentration camps. Actually Patton said the US should have been helping the Germans against the communists. There is a difference between German and Nazi. There were many in the German High Command who had made overtures to Britain, especially, offering to remove Hitler and the Nazis. The US and Europe actually could have saved a generation, as well as incredible expense, if they had just ended communism, or allowed the Germans to do so, rather than end up "defending" the Germans from an enemy Germany probably would have defeated on its own, had the Allies not aided that enemy, which was, lest one forget, at least as harsh of a governmental system as the Nazis were. Instead the US and Britain spent a fortune to base armies in Germany to defend against a communist enemy, for nearly 60 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 Unfortuantely for that line of argument it would have been a suicidal argument to put to the populations who had been fighting, or occupied by the Axis powers. Rather galling to have two fruit loops on the prowl in the shape ofMacArthur and Patton had he lived to put out this message. Assuming of course that it is true. The career of the people named does suggest that they were part of the insiders club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Instead the US and Britain spent a fortune to base armies in Germany to defend against a communist enemy, for nearly 60 years. Yes we should have saved the money by killing a few more 10's of thousands of soldiers lives in what would have been a pointless and unjustified conflict. Besides EVERYBODY knows that Patton was abducted by zombie space aliens and served as their high commander until his death when Elvis took over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Yes we should have saved the money by killing a few more 10's of thousands of soldiers lives in what would have been a pointless and unjustified conflict. Besides EVERYBODY knows that Patton was abducted by zombie space aliens and served as their high commander until his death when Elvis took over. Elvis is in charge now? I never got the memo...damned aliens!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Yeah, what was so bad about Soviet Russia anyway? The didnt gas or nuke anyone as far as I know. Germans and US did though lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 I am not sure that victims necessarily judge their fate on how they are actually killed. I think starvation and bullets as methods of killing are actually not a recommendation for Soviet Russia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum I had no idea he was so gung-ho [stupid] in this instance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum I had no idea he was so gung-ho [stupid] in this instance. This may have been one of his biggest out and out blunders of the war. How much his judgement was affected by the belief that his son-in-law was being held in that camp, and how much by a belief the war was all but won is open to conjecture. But either way, it was a bad call amounting to senselessness. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I think it goes beyond bad judgement and more towards nepotism, abuse of power and corruption. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Yeah, what was so bad about Soviet Russia anyway? The didnt gas or nuke anyone as far as I know. Germans and US did though lol. Is that sarcasm? Or do you truly not know how many millions the Soviets murdered? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Yeah, what was so bad about Soviet Russia anyway? The didnt gas or nuke anyone as far as I know. Germans and US did though lol. What Speedy said right above me, as well as what Diesel said..how they were killed matters less than the fact that many more were killed under the Soviets. I am sure you know this and were simply being sarcastic however. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum I had no idea he was so gung-ho [stupid] in this instance. While agreeing he was stupid in this instance, don't be so quick to judge, probably very many people in his situation would have given at least serious consideration to this..a relative captured, and you have the chance to directly facilitate his/her rescue...not sure I would even respect someone who did not at least consider this strongly, though hopefully i n the end, realizing that you risk many other people's relatives, to rescue your own, would finally cause caution to win out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Guys I know the soviets murdered millions of people too. Its just this isnt enough to label them as the red monsters western propaganda claimed them to be. British empire has probably murdered more, yet they walk away as a "good" western power. This is hypocritical. I probably wouldnt want to live in that era, but like it or not, the communist regime was a necessary step for Russia to move forward. Let's not forget how bad people lived under the Tsar, no education, no health care, 13 yr olds working in coal mines etc etc. Soviet Union was a violently evolving nation. By 1945 they had evolved to the point they beat the most teriffying war machine that ever marched on this planet. And if they were so bad they would have exterminated the whole eastern german population by 1946-they had every right to do so. So, I dont buy the evilness, this is what empires are all about since the day man discovered how to murder. Also, the means you use to kill do matter for me. An animal can kill out of need but death chambers, testing compression effects on POWs and making purses out of the dead's skin is plain bloody psycopathic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Ali-Baba...very many of my relatives WERE murdered by the Soviets in E. Germany...this included a great aunt who was attacked by 10+ Soviets. Family driven from historic home at the point of Soviet guns, etc. While I know that the German army did some of this same behavior, they are ALWAYS called evil, for it, while those who did worse are not. This is annoying to say the least. But stepping back from this, millions more of the Soviets were killed by their own government..ask Ukrainians what happened to THEIR people under the USSR in the 1930s, for that matter, ask the Poles, the Rumanians, the Hungarians,etc. The destroyed my homeland, but there can be an argument it was deserved...no such argument can be made for the other nations of Eastern Europe they tore apart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 While agreeing he was stupid in this instance, don't be so quick to judge, probably very many people in his situation would have given at least serious consideration to this..a relative captured, and you have the chance to directly facilitate his/her rescue...not sure I would even respect someone who did not at least consider this strongly, though hopefully i n the end, realizing that you risk many other people's relatives, to rescue your own, would finally cause caution to win out. Any soldier, in fact any person, in a position of authority who uses that authority for their own ends or in reaction to their own feelings is guilty of the highest betrayal of that trust and as such should be stripped of the authority immediately. This principle is drilled into officers right from day one. Well in Australia it is and I am sure the USAlians are no different 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 While agreeing he was stupid in this instance, don't be so quick to judge, probably very many people in his situation would have given at least serious consideration to this..a relative captured, and you have the chance to directly facilitate his/her rescue...not sure I would even respect someone who did not at least consider this strongly, though hopefully i n the end, realizing that you risk many other people's relatives, to rescue your own, would finally cause caution to win out. My gripe is that if he was going to go through with it, he should have insured that a large enough force was sent to do the job. The Wiki article states that originally Abrams intended to take his entire combat command on the raid. Somebody higher up nixed that plan. So whoever that was comes in for a share of the blame as well. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Any soldier, in fact any person, in a position of authority who uses that authority for their own ends or in reaction to their own feelings is guilty of the highest betrayal of that trust and as such should be stripped of the authority immediately. This principle is drilled into officers right from day one. Well in Australia it is and I am sure the USAlians are no different Quite so, here as well...however, the words, vs. the actual occasion where your loved one is in danger, are two quite different things. As I said above, hopefully the "right" choice would win in the end, but I would hope that any human would also at least think of the other choice. By the same token, every time an officer leads men into combat, he does so with the understanding that accomplishment of the mission takes highest priority,and therefore, sometimes must make choices that would result in the deaths of people..those under him, sometimes even civilians...this is also drilled into every officer..but also does not mean that said officer should be devoid of human thoughts with regard to those casualties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 My gripe is that if he was going to go through with it, he should have insured that a large enough force was sent to do the job. The Wiki article states that originally Abrams intended to take his entire combat command on the raid. Somebody higher up nixed that plan. So whoever that was comes in for a share of the blame as well. Michael Patton was probably the allied general who had the most respect among the Germans, mostly because of his style..it is something a German general would have done..a daring raid with a small mobile force...just in this case, for Patton, it did not work out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 One wonders how much image is shaped by the Press reports both for home and enemy consumption. And I am just curious if there was favourable Press and leaks to make the Calais landing a believable story. And not forgetting the quality of the troops under command. And the subordinates. And the nature of the opposition which they faced. If someone served in Burma under Slim then thay may well feel that their value/effectiveness was never given the same exposure. Patton fired less commanders and lost less men than Bradley but I always think that this kind of data in isolation means nothing. Anyway an intersting piece on the unnecessary Hurtgen Forest .. http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-hurtgen-forest.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.