"Eisenhower relieved Patton not because he was a loose cannon, but because of his public remarks, thought injurious to the Four Power alliance (which the Soviets abrogated anyway)."
He most certainly was a loose cannon in a military structure dominated by a diplomat (Eisenhower) and the infantry-first mindset (Bradley, Marshall). the fact that Patton was (mostly) right with regards to his brand of warfare (charge hard, huge casualties in the short term mitigate huge casualties in the long term). The publicity he generated only increased the dislike for Patton amongst the old-school infantry commanders appointed above him.
However, after Sicily, Patton was dully muzzled and except for two flourishes in France (Falaise and the rescue at the Bulge), his campaigns are uninspired and show every sign of Patton having been made to "toe-the-line" as dictated by Bradley and Eisenhower. The days of massed armored attacks in Europe were over; the Germans didn't have the armor and the deeper Patton got into France, the less opportunity he had to fight on suitable terrain.
"Gen Patton was a near-perfect, aggressive battlefield commander."
A lot of Patton's success was due to his "aggressive" division commanders, most notably Generals Wood and Abrahms and Weyland, not to any tactical genius on Patton's part. As for near-perfect, that's one that we could debate all day long.
He was a great soldier and a man who was available right when the United States need him (from the time of Kasserine right up until Americans crossed the Rhine), but the rest of the time was a prima-donna, a pain in the ass, and a very dangerous man who often overestimated his own abilities and consistently underestimated his opponents. His saving grace was that his aggression (and copious American tactical airpower) more often than not turned a bad situation into a somewhat acceptible one.
As for Patton being given free rein against the Russians: he would have lost. Badly.
Now, was he assassinated? Your guess is as good as mine. One important factor to weigh in the "Accident or Assassination" argument is that Patton was seriously weighing a future in politics (despite his insistance to the contrary) and pretty much owned his Congressional district in California (where the Pattons had been poltical patrons for near on a century).
Good analysis in this post. Sometimes I don't know how Ike survived with his sanity having to deal with George Patton and B.L. Montgomery, prima donnas supreme but both, in their own way, great generals, in the same war.
Your critique of Patton is most interesting. But wasn't Ulysses "The Bulldog" Grant faulted for the same reasons, mainly spending lavishly on casualties for the sake of victory? There is indeed much to be debated.
Please talk some more about Patton's political ambitions (all speculation being wiped out by his death). Would Patton have succeeded in electoral politics, given his martial temper?
"As for Patton being given free rein against the Russians: he would have lost. Badly. "
Ah yes , but you forget we had perfected the ancient art of "A-Bomb"