Posted on 04/10/2014 2:19:58 PM PDT by kingattax
The new documentary Silence Patton: First Victim of the Cold War claims that General George Patton was murdered, possibly by the KGB, because he was vociferous in his desire to oppose the former Soviet Union.
Writer-director Robert Orlando said his goal was to “prove to the viewer that he was silenced because his views didn’t go along with the status quo.”
Patton died Dec. 21, 1945, as a result of injuries he suffered when he was traveling as a passenger in a car that was crushed by a two-ton truck. The rest of the people involved in the crash only sustained minor injuries.
Patton hated Josef Stalin, the Soviet leader, and his hatred made him enemies in the U.S. and Great Britain as well as the Soviet Union.
He is supposed to have said, "Tin politicians in Washington have allowed us to kick the hell out of one bastard (Adolf Hitler) and at the same time forced us to help establish a second one (Stalin) as evil or more evil than the first.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
We should be glad an incompetant fool like AH was in charge. Imagine if it was Erwin Rommel.
“Your decision, Mr. President, to grant the Soviet Union an interest-free loan to the value of $1,000,000,000 to meet deliveries of munitions and raw materials to the Soviet Union is accepted by the Soviet Government with heartfelt gratitude as vital aid to the Soviet Union in its tremendous and onerous struggle against our common enemy-bloody Hitlerism.”
Joesph Stalin
That’s a common assumption. But since it didn’t happen that way we will never know for sure.
Add Nathan Bedford Forrest and Stonewall Jackson to the list.
Patton was the grandson of Colonel George S. Patton Sr., who commanded the 33nd Virginia. He was KIA at the 3rd Battle of Winchester.
After Roosevelt gave Stalin arms and supplies during WWII the Soviets repaid the U.S. by supplying arms, supplies and technical aid, even pilots and KGB interrogators to North Vietnam for use against our troops.
http://alphahistory.com/vietnam/chinese-and-soviet-involvement/
There were supposedly a total of six bombs [four new Plutonium bombs plus the Uranium and Plutonium bombs already dropped on Japan] when Oppenheimer left Los Alamos at the end of September, 1945. This fact was roughly verified by the Russians, who were apparently told by Klaus Fuchs that the Allies could "threaten them with no more than five bombs."
Four or five bombs could have destroyed Germany or the Soviet Union for all practical purposes in 1945.
my opinion about Gen. Patton is subjective of course and despite your impressive list, i stand by it.
Patton’s skills as a combat commander speak for themselves and the record of his Third Army in particular does as well.
I am aware that in 1945 we had a strictly limited number of Bombs. However, if they were our only effective method of destroying Germany it is possible additional resources would have been pitched in earlier and we could have had more by 1945. Or possibly what they produced was all that was possible.
Or we sit in UK for a year and then nuke the crap out of Hitler with our next batch of a couple dozen Bombs. It’s not like he’s got anywhere he can hide.
A more interesting scenario is whether UK would have fallen without an Eastern Front to divert the vast majority of Hitler’s forces.
In 1944 the Western Allies faced 1.5M to 2M Germans and allies. The Red Army was dealing with about 4M. How do you think things would have worked out for US/UK had they faced another 3M Germans in France and Italy?
The numerous factors involved make it difficult to compare numbers, but in general the western allies had to deal with about half the number of Germans that the Reds did.
In 44/45 we had about 5M men on the western front, facing about 1.5M Germans. And we still had a difficult time.
Can you read a map? If you can, tell me how we could have done anything at all substantive to stop Stalin from doing whatever he wanted with Poland.
We could, of course, have refused to legitimize it, and that might very well have been worthwhile. But the Allied leaders were still focused, rightly IMO, on finishing off Hitler. One war at a time is always good advice.
Roosevelt and Churchill hid the murders from the U.S. and British people in order to keep the Soviets fighting against the Germans
A not at all irrational POV, given that Stalin had previously signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler when the western allies got the bright idea of encouraging them to fight each other to exhaustion.
I'll agree on this one. Though some large but unknown percentage of them were willing collaborators with the Nazis and war criminals who deserved everything they got.
But handing over tens or hundreds of thousands of men to torture and death without a hearing was an appalling thing to do.
The whole assassination conspiracy notion is just absurd. To believe it, you have to believe that the best plan someone could come up with was to stage a car accident, run up to Patton's car and use some sort of magical weapon that would break his neck, then wait a couple of weeks for him to develop a pulmonary edema and congestive heart failure from being laid up in a body cast.
Indeed he was. Was not one of those “fighting the last war” generals.
And I have heard this more than once. Maybe it has some legs.
Those nukes were meant to be dropped on Germany, but Germany was defeated before they were ready. We didn’t start a nuclear weapons project because we feared Japan had one. We developed them because we thought we were in a race against German nuclear scientists.
BM’d for later...
Couple things: 1) Many Russians deserved a similar fate. They did not receive it. 2) Contrast this with the Atlantic Charter, which is a rough summary of Anglo-American civilization, including the idea that ten guilty men should go free rather than prosecute one innocent man 3) There was no real attempt to try the repatriated 4) They were not primarily wanted for crimes against mankind, but for crimes against the Soviet Union and 5) The end of the war should have been a time to forgive, and Nuremberg should never have happened. It was a travesty [commented on by Goering at the time] that the Russians actually had the bald-faced hypocrisy at the show trials to declare the Nazi invasion of Poland a war-crime. How could we possibly try anyone for that without trying the Russians involved in the rape of Poland -- some of whom were judges -- as well?
The Japanese military were every bit as evil as the Nazis. Our policy toward Japan was saner and ultimately more productive. We should not have given Stalin what he wanted. It was an injustice that was not mitigated by the fact that many of the repatriates were guilty.
Yeah, and then the US flag would have been taken down and the hammer and sickle replaced it because that's what FDR agreed to at Yalta. The Russians lost 80,000 dead and a quarter million wounded in the Battle of Berlin. What would the point of US casualties like that have been just to raise a flag that the politicians had already decided wouldn't stay?
What happened in the hospital was he threw a blood clot that killed him. Not particularly unusual for a quadriplegic flat on his back for weeks.
2. True.
3. True.
4. Quite right, though often A = B.
5. I agree Nuremberg was a travesty. The German courts should have been reconstituted and the Nazi war criminals tried in them. With, no doubt, subtle (or not) hints to the German courts by the occupying powers that the accused had better be convicted.
The answer to this question is not the same as the answer to the question about how things might have fared on the continent without a Russian front, with which you have conflated it.
The answer to this question is unequivocally: "No." Hitler had no practical ability to invade Britain, and was repeatedly told this by his admirals. Doenitz in particular told him that he had no chance of putting an invasion fleet in the channel against the British Navy alone, and certainly no chance against the combined US and British Fleets. Goering's ill-fated attempt to "invade" Britain from the air tells you all you need to know about whether Britain would have fallen to the Axis.
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.