Killing Patton: The Strange Death of World War IIs Most Audacious General by Bill OReilly

Killing Patton: The Strange Death of World War IIs Most Audacious General Reviews

• 
  Jane

  This book would be better titled, "Vignettes for People Who Know Nothing about the Last Months of WWII, Plus a Few Pages Speculating on Patton's Death and Why There Was No Investigation Of The Accident."
• 
  Mike (the Paladin)

  I debated a bit whether to go 4 or 5 stars here. I finally went with 5 as the book is readable, interesting and well researched. It may not be exceptional but it does what it set out to do. I liked it.
  
  I noted that the book seems to get mostly mid-range to higher ratings...though not universally, LOL. One person who gave a lower rating said that they'd never read anything about this in history and anyway, nothing was said about it in the George C. Scott movie.
  
  sigh.
  
  This isn't the first book I've read on this subject and the details of what happened are essentially known. However Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Dugard have uncovered a few things that have at least been overlooked since the events of the book.
  
  The book picks up with and covers the last year of General Patton's life right up to his death. I won't go into/over the events, the evidence etc. The book leaves us somewhat in the place we started, in that there is no proof/empirical evidence one way or another. However there is evidence and it exceeds most conspiracy theory type arguments. The book ends with a call for a more detailed investigation using modern forensics even in spite of the time that has passed.
  
  It actually makes sense. There is (and I thought this "somewhat" before I read this book based on what I'd read before) more than enough evidence to inspire an investigation.
  
  Recommended.
• 
  Carol

  General George S. Patton, Jr. - November 11, 1885 - December 21, 1945

  As usual, O'Reilly draws the reader in with his first sentence. "The man with forty-five minutes left to live cannot defend himself." He then goes on to describe the somewhat suspicious and ultimately deadly accident that took the life of General Patton.....including his last words to Eleanor.

  In KILLING PATTON, we get bits and pieces of WWII and a peak at the personal lives and bizarre deaths of Hitler and Stalin. Eisenhower, FDR, Truman and Churchill....how they all died is depict here too, and we get a brief look at all their mistresses...Patton's included. (Truman was faithful)

  Highlights also include The Battle of the Bulge, Malmedy Massacre, the horrors of Auschwitz, and there's even a bit about the birth of the CIA.

  And although the book has much less about PATTON than I expected, it does give the reader a feel for his HUGE ego, unpredictability of word and actions, supreme love of battle, and willingness to endure the same hardships as his men. (For me, PATTON'S two priceless conversations with GOD alone were worth the price of the book.)

  Anyway, I have now read all six of the KILLING history novels, and while this one is my least favorite, O'Reilly's simplistic style of writing with insertion of maps and old photos (the one of Patton along side the Rhine cracked me up) made for a fast and informative read once again.

  The final word is a good one: "General Patton no doubt died a hero, and history certainly honors that to this day. But the tough old general did not go out on his own terms, and there are many unanswered questions surrounding his death. Those questions deserve to be addressed."
• 
  Jean

  This is the first time I have read a book written by Bill O’Reilly. I almost did not buy it because of O’Reilly but the suggestions that he could prove that General Patton was assassinated intrigued me. I got the book to see if O’Reilly would reasonably prove his claim. The death of General Patton in December 1945 is one of the enduring mysteries of World War II. For seventy-four years, there have been suspicions and lots of conspiracy theories that his death was not an accident. O’Reilly and Dugard take readers inside the final years of the War, the majority of the book is taken up with an over view of 1944 and 1945. They also recount the events surrounding Patton’s tragic demise, naming names of the many powerful individuals who wanted him silenced in the last chapter of the book.
  
  The author’s claim newly unearthed diaries of Douglas Bazata have been found. Bazata worked for the OSS in Europe during the war. The OSS was headed by General “Wild Bill” Donovan. Bazata claims that Donovan ordered him to kill General Patton. The diaries state that Bazata staged the car accident then shot General Patton with a low velocity projectile which broke his neck. This is not new information; this was ignored by the press and historians at the time. There was a made for T.V. Movie made using this information called “The Last Days of Patton.” There is a new movie called “Silence Patton: First Victim of the Cold War.” The authors are emphasizing the second part of the Bazata’s claim. When Patton was getting better and about to be transferred to a hospital in the United States, U.S. officials turned a blind eye as an agent of the NKVD poisoned General Patton, therefore, the author’s claim that Stalin ordered the assassination of Patton.
  
  General Patton is one of the general that I read everything I can find about him. I have read about these claims for years. The authors did not convince me of the validity of these claims. I was looking for documentation that proved these old theories. I have only highlighted the theory, you will need to read the book yourself for the details and make up your own mind if they proved their theory. I read this as an audio book downloaded from Audible. O’Reilly narrated the book himself.
  
• 
  Ed

  With a BA in History (admittedly earned more than a few years ago), I thought I had the complete story of George Patton's brilliant military career, especially his decisively bold and effective leadership of the US Third Army, post D Day. Bill O'Reilly, in his outstanding history of not only the very strange death of Patton in an automobile accident but the various parties both foreign and domestic with the means, motive and opportunity to contract out his assassination. His audacious accomplishments, especially the 3rd Army's heroic relief of the trapped 101 Airborne Division at Bastogne in 1944 to halt the German advance in the Battle of the Bulge and his outspoken criticism and prescient views of Stalin's true objectives for the Russian army's conquered territories in Eastern Europe in the post war period upset the contemporary wisdom of the day which resulted in ceding Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union for the next 50 years.
  
  Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander, had a problem with Patton's views of our Russian allies as did Wild Bill Donovan, head of the OSS with valuable contacts in the Soviet Union and of course, Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union's dictator for life. All had the means, motive and opportunity to assassinate Patton but an OSS operative confessed in 1979 that he was part of a team that staged the auto accident that paralyzed Patton who died suddenly in a German hospital which too quickly "lost" all medical and accident records of the event.
  
  The is the first O'Reilly book I've read and it won't be the last. You might not like his political views but his historical research is impeccable as well as framing his research into this complex warrior's last year in combat in a fascinatingly compelling non-fiction, page turning thriller. I highly recommend it.......Ed
• 
  Clif Hostetler

  I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly's TV show. But I'll grant that he has a knack for writing "popular" books about interesting events in history. Numerous acquaintances of mine have recommend
  The Killing Series of history books to me. This is the first of that series that I've read, and I'll have to admit that it's as enjoyable (dare I say entertaining?) presentation of history as can be made.
  
  This book is actually a history of the western European front of World War II with a focus on General Patton's statements and actions. The book's narrative jumps numerous times from Patton to other places and individuals. Included are vignettes of FDR, Stalin, Churchill, and Hitler (and probably others I can't remember). O'Reilly keeps the book narrative flowing by skipping over burdensome details and ambiguities in the historical record that frequently bogs down academic writing of history.
  
  I've been puzzled about the details of Patton's death by car accident for some time, and I hoped that this book would clear things up for me. Well, the details are here, but whether it was an accident or not is not a settled question. Readers who gravitate toward conspiracy theories will probably be convinced from this book that the KGB orchestrated his death. I think it was an accident.
• 
  Kon R.

  I was a bit reluctant to read this entry of the Killing series. As much as I love World War 2 history, Patton was never a person of interest to me. I'm so glad I read it. Patton's life is stuff of movies. Not only him as a character, but also the circumstances surrounding him down to his demise. I think any World War 2 junkie will gush with excitement.
  
  I love O'Reilly's style of storytelling. He reminds me of my favorite history teacher in that he's able to make the events come alive right before your eyes. I learned a great deal of World War 2 knowledge from this read. My favorite part was all the details regarding Hitler's last day alive. I always assumed he died as a coward in secret. I wasn't aware how intricate the process really was. It makes sense though when you consider how evil and eccentric all of Hitler's actions were.
  
  Don't miss this incredible series and definitely don't miss this entry.
• 
  Jim Brown

  This is the fourth in a series of books written by Bill O'Reilly and it is by far his best. My guess is that most people under the age of 50 have no idea who General Patton is or what he accomplished. This book is more about the history of WWII than the actual killing of Patton. If you like history this book is for you. If you think you know what happened to Patton this book is for you. I would strongly encourage you to give this book to children over the age of 13 to read because it is about history I seriously doubt is ever taught in schools.
• 
  Carlos

  Read this book if you like WWII narratives , but if you are looking for an explanation of who if anybody killed General Patron you won't find it here . Otherwise this book was a great study into the last months of the war and a glimpse into the lives of great men who shaped those days , with an emphasis on General Patton!
• 
  Jeanette

  First of all, Bill O'Reilly writes in a style that is close, no identical, to the way he speaks. So saying someone else is writing the whole book for him (stated by other posters) is just wrong. As are some of the evaluations of his placements within the present politico too. Obviously, some have made judgments of extreme bias without once having listened to the man at all. He is not a strong Conservative. In fact, so moderate that he has to be rude to get a word in during his own show, at times. Clearly there are many who just listen to their choirs and nothing else. Many small government Conservatives, libertarian slant, socially traditional, and almost all Christian Conservative see O'Reilly as nearly in the "other" camp. He is a Moderate and on several key issues, like immigration, has Independent stance/status.
  
  Second, some of the critique opinions of this book on the downside do have several strong points. Especially upon stronger evidence in/for more proof in the pattern of "accident" before and on the incident which resulted in Patton's death. But to post the summation of this lack- that because having never heard of this murder charge accusation before this book, so therefore it can't be true? ROFL. With the way history is taught in colleges today, that is absolutely a laughable premise. Believe me, when I went to school in the 1950's-1970's the "first" time, I was taught that Patton's death was highly suspicious and buried within the birth of the CIA for disagreement with official military compliance. This was by Sisters of Mercy, Jesuits, Christian Bros. of de la Salle, in case you'd like to know. O'Reilly went to the same kinds of schools in NY, but take my word for it- the schools at all levels and public or private of all types did not teach history then as they do today. It wasn't taught in an ideologue pattern to omission of the facts that don't "fit" proper P.C. dialog or mantra. They actually made you see physical facts and debate historical choices. I can remember having to draw the Battle of the Bulge on the blackboard, for instance. It was a terrible botch up and lost a huge number of Allies lives, mostly American.
  
  Regardless, that detailing of the end of the war was 5 star. It was nearly exactly what my Dad told me when I was a girl and didn't even want to hear about it. He was in that exact crux aftermath, heading a prisoner of war camp in Trieste from 1945-1947 as he was German born and spoken, but American citizen. In fact, he arrived and tried to get to Patton's funeral and missed it by 3 days. Christmas intervened. My Dad opined about few politico things to us but never failed to mention how FDR first and primarily, but especially Eisenhower, botched the end of the war in the European Theatre. He liked Truman's reactions but said most of the damage was done already by Yalta, Potsdam (FDR) by the time Truman could get the legs of the situation under himself. Truman was kept completely in the dark until after FDR's death. My father always thought that Eastern Europe unto Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia were set back to the dark ages with complete abandon and utmost stupidity. He saw Hungarians, Polish, Czechs with no home or no life to return to except one of slave labor or Siberia. He could never understand way Patton and the Blue Devils who came up the boot of Italy (his division) didn't keep going to save the millions of kids and women being raped, tortured and killed by the Russian mobs. He said they (Russian gangs) were not an army, but a mob at that point. He said the American infantry was not depleted as the other nations' armies were, and that Churchill knew they had to keep going but was completely negated in any outcome. Except for the summit photos, his power was virtually invisible at the summits when they "split it up". Stalin killed 60 million people eventually, and not just Russians, but speakers of dozens of other languages and cultures. That's about 7 times as many as Hitler murdered.
  
  What was so highly superlative about this book (5 star for me) was the lengthy first 3/4ths that details the years 1944-1946 on the scenes of the European Theatre. And to say the entire book's course was not valid because this war scenario had nothing to do with Patton's death? Ridiculous. Everything that was going on was pivotal to Patton's situation. Especially because of his style of arrogant swagger and complete inability to market himself as other than what he was. And he WAS an individual who does not fit(and never would have fit) into the quickly overwhelming humanistic relativism philosophy that begins to dominate during this era and eventually triumphs in a way that enables closed world "eyes" to horrific genocides in Africa or SW Asia or Russia that follow in the decades after WWII. Genocides that kill 7 or 8 times the numbers of humans killed by deplorable and deadly Fascism, but that are mostly conveniently ignored to this day. And never more ignored than in literature, at that.
  
  Read Patton's speech of June 5, 1944, printed at the end of this O'Reilly book, and then reread it again. It is nearly the antithesis of what core beliefs are presently. It fits in with Caesar or Napoleon, far more than intelligentsia views from the 20th Century. Patton was a problem because he refused to ignore an enemy. And his recognition skills for an enemy could not be submerged in any kind of diplomatic vagueness. Churchill too was not an ignorer, but he was gotten rid of much more easily as his power base was nearly obliterated after 5 years of horrific attrition. And so his politico system bounced him out too, and choose to ignore when it no longer wanted to view. A reality of vile and despicable behaviors beyond a supposedly "common" sense of humanity veneer that left 60 million dead in 20 years.
  
  My poor Dad saw them running westwards with the bite marks and missing flesh and he couldn't be an ignorer either. Now I wish I would have listened more to his stories, and was more tolerate to his politico judgments. I wasn't.
  
  This was the best O'Reilly book to read, and yet the book with the least criminal proof accuracy for the death cause. But that was such a dire time in history with millions having no home or country for return that paperwork, not even for a general, became any kind of consideration. And yet, it seems so "off" that accident and aftermath. That the outcome was so much more dire for Patton than it was for the others in the car? Coupled with the vanishing of witnesses? Beyond suspicious and so highly convenient for blooming Federal secrecy organization (USA).
  
  The form of putting so much material into the footnotes on each page too, is quite different in this particular "Killing" series book. I liked it. It's a throwback and is more elemental- quite another style from most present hazy to context and nebulous erudite writing of duplicity. Items or names put into the paragraph length sentences with assumed hubris of understanding like-minded context being endemic for about a decade now. Current style redefines entire words or concepts without a footnote. Consistently. 300 words on theory for every 50 of fact or definition. Hopefully that style of footnote detailing will return to give the young some facts from the era about physical or celeb or public knowledge background for the times portrayed within the main copy. Because the college crowd certainly fails to have context to that degree of historical record right now. They tend to read theory and program advancement of a philosophy of actions far more now than they read about any specifics of battle or stats or logistics of supply. Like a kind of Wikipedia Cliff Notes for everything. For instance, I had a group of 18-25 year olds, about 30 individuals, reading American History once, and only one student knew what a K ration was at the course's end. That's abominable.
  
  When we had to draw that line through the forest on the board (Bulge tactics), I never "got" completely what that teacher tried to portray about overrunning your supply line (Germans during Bulge)or stopping at the wrong times in horrendous error (Allies). I do now.
• 
  Gary Schantz

  For starters, in all my years of reading about history, this story has never come up. Not in the least. My grandparents were of the WWII generation and they never mentioned this "possible assassination". My history teachers never mentioned this either. Not in high school. Not in college. No one and considering that I live in the land of opinions I find it hard to believe that only Bill O'Reilly has managed to prove this murder is not a conspiracy but a truth.
  
  To be fair, I read the opening chapters...then went to the final chapters because all the in-between stuff I have read before. After all, WWII has to be the most written about war in American history. So all the writing about Patton's battefield victories are well-known and of course he had enemies...Hitler, Mussolini...plus he wasn't well-liked by many of his superiors. No big surprise.
  
  Therefore I saw no interest in taking this "theory" seriously which is exactly was this book is about despite the fact that Bill O'Reilly writes in the beginning of the book that he does not take conspiracy theories seriously so this book is about uncovered facts.
  
  So where does he come up such a crazy idea that Patton had attempt made on his life by virtue of a truck slamming into his car on purpose so that another man could shoot him in the neck?
  
  O'Reilly is now batting .500...Lincoln and Christ were great books...but Kennedy and Patton are not only bad they both smack of conservative hypocrisy. The Kennedy conspiracy is liberal-minded and wrong...the Patton conspiracy is conservative and factual.
  
  If O'Reilly keeps this up...his next book is going to be titled "Killing Credibility".
  
  UPDATE: I decided to change my review after reading all of these ridiculous fans of O'Reilly praise this book as some sort of truth-seeking undertaking. I have based this on the following quotes that I have read in many different papers and blogs.
  
  After having done some research on what professional book critics had to say about this book and its' theory, I have now realized that the book should have been given NO STARS but since Goodreads does not recognize the zero, I have no choice but to leave it as a one.
  
  "It suggests a compulsion to make the facts conform to some predetermined conviction. The result is not history but clunky hagiography, a book that tells you more about O’Reilly than it does about Patton." - Richard Cohen, The Washington Post
  
  "At first blush, much of what has been held up as evidence of a conspiracy to Killing Patton does not hold up. Yet, there remain some incomplete pieces to the crime scene that still could spark a conversation about conspiracy and even murder, but it is you the audience who must fill in the mysteries, which reveals more about our worldviews...the rehashing of older speculations in a "bold and fresh" O'Reilly-Dugard style. An approach that can once again land O'Reilly with more books sold, but very little new truth revealed." - Robert Orlando, writer and filmmaker of Silencing Patton
  
  "In clear, accessible language that takes us inside the minds of historical figures, O’Reilly and Dugard create a blend of fact and FICTION as riveting as any thriller." - Barnes & Noble editorial review
  
  "The most controversial portion of Killing Patton involves the death of General Patton. It provides details of a conspiracy theory that the Premier of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, may have ordered Patton killed. Anyone that knows anything about Bill O’Reilly has to suspect that this was his idea. One has to suspect that while sifting through Dugard’s research, Mr. O’Reilly unearthed a sales tactic to separate Killing Patton from the numerous books written on WWII. The latter involves as much speculation on my part, as the conspiracy theory does." - Rilaly's Blog
  
  "Certainly, there are a number of curious circumstances that invite doubt and speculation, Bazata’s admission for one. Or that the drunken sergeant who drove a likely stolen truck into Patton’s car inexplicably was never prosecuted or even reprimanded." - Senator John McCain
  
  Each of these reviews clearly states what my argument has been from the beginning. This is a book about a theory based on some truths which were already known and adding in fiction (which O'Reilly call facts) to create a truth. If this was written by Oliver Stone, I would not be reading any of this criticism of my review.
  
  Therefore, it's nice to know that there are actual writers who agree with me. However I will throw in the towel of trying convince O'Reilly fans that he is simply selling you historical fiction. Unlike his other books, this book is not listed as one of the New York Times 100 most notables nor is it listed one of the 10 Best Books of 2014.
• 
  Dell Deaton

  Killing Patton first struck me as something akin to a sixth-grader's book report, written by a student only tangentially enthusiastic about its premise. General George S Patton, Jr, inexplicably disappears from the prose for long periods. This, in favor of digressions into fiction-enhanced and not terribly relevant tangents focused on historical contemporaries, large and small, often several steps removed.
  
  Nothing new or uniquely compelling here.
  
  (And I'm very open to intrigue, if not outright conspiracy, and in particular to this subject matter.)
  
  At several points I wondered if authors Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard weren't simply struggling to channel Agatha Christie as they flitted from shoehorning-in one new character vignette, then the next, in order to, apparently, set the stage for a contrived whodunit. They take us from soldiers on the front lines of battle to The White House, from mistresses to flatulence. Too often, to no end.
  
  The closest you'll get to the meat-and-potatoes of killing Patton in Killing Patton come at the beginning and the end.
  
  Although I haven't read any of the other books in the O'Reilly-Dugard "Killing" franchise, I strongly suspect that this duo has arrived at a dime-store romance novel formula with Killing Kennedy, Killing Lincoln, et cetera. Thus they've set their hook in Killing Patton, bulked it with massive amounts of only sometimes interesting trivia; it's invariably un-satisyfing filler, because it never comes close to what the book promises to examine.
  
  This is particularly obvious in the audiobook version being reviewed here: The voiceover actually switches to a new person after primary reader Bill O'Reilly concludes the last chapter, adding a post-script where a laundry-list of loose-ends are self-consciously tied.
  
  Even more appallingly, the core narration suggests that this is likely the first time that Bill O'Reilly has read these words that he, himself, is credited with co-authoring. Sentences flow awkwardly throughout. He stumbles when citing armament names and unfolding action. His infrequent sparks of enthusiasm stand in stark contrast against an overall demeanor of a man committed to no more than giving but one read-through. Take it or leave it. He's got more important things to do.
  
  So do you.
  
  If you're interested in new information or real insight, it's not to be found in Killing Patton. It doesn't even make for pleasant listening.
• 
  Derek

  This belongs in the alternate history fiction category as that is all this is, a work of fiction. To pawn this off as real history is a travesty. There is NOTHING presented in this book except some dusty old conspiracy theory with no proof or even compelling evidence to support the claim that he was assassinated.
  
  Here is a news flash for everyone. General Patton was killed in an automobile accident, notice the word accident, end of story.
  
  Do not waste your time or money on this book. It dishonors the memory of General Patton
• 
  Katie Gronsbell

  Sadly disappointed in this very poorly written book....
  I've read all of Bill O'Reilly's books and can't understand how he and his co writer went so wrong on this one. The last 50 pages were the best part. I trudged through the first part reading information that seemed impertinent to the premiss of the book.
• 
  Dj

  It is fairly rare that I find a history book, that is about worthless. This is one of those occasions. I have no clear idea what it is that Bill O'Reilly is trying to prove with such a provocative title, after all Assassination by Auto Accident is a pretty unreliable way to kill someone, but after reading a third of the book I have no real desire to wade through the rest of it. The writing style is that of a sensationalist and the little errors of facts that are oddly wrong, when a simple check would have been enough to make it correct are compounded by his personal emotions involving various individuals in the book.
  FDR, Wild Bill Donnovan, Bradley, and even Ike don't figure much in his mind, where as Patton and his G2 Oscar Koch are painted with a very favorable brush. While it is nice seeing Koch get his much neglected time in the spot light, it is hard to balance that with the way he either pours adulation or scorn on this subject matter. O'Reilly doesn't seem to understand the concept of dispassionate presentation of the subject. Not always a bad thing, but with his over the top style it is kind of difficult to put up with for any great length of time.
  All things considered I would call this a book to avoid. And one that only slightly qualifies as a actual history.
• 
  Albert Town

  What purports to be a new twist upon the death of General George Patton fails. It fails because a question of sufficiency of evidence- Mr. O'Riley makes an allegation and fails to carry his burden. Moreover, he glosses over the rich details leading to successful conclusion of the war against Germany. Moreover, he fails to develop the reason why Mr. Winston Churchill loathed the USSR. Would not recommend it.
• 
  Henry

  This is the first of O'Reilly's "killing" books I have read. I thought it would be about Patton's death, but that was a very small part and provided nothing new. This book amounted to an interesting popular history of some of the main events of World War II, but there are much better books out there, whether "hard" or popular history. If his other "killing" books are similar, I think I will pass. If any of my Goodreads friends has read others and thinks they are worthwhile, let me know.
• 
  Carol Storm

  Oddly enough, the portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower is more interesting than that of Patton. As a skilled administrator and leader, one who never strikes before it's necessary, Ike comes across as complex, even enigmatic, while Patton is more of a blowhard who overcompensates in order to cope with some fairly obvious insecurity.
  
  Long on salacious gossip and far out rumors, but short on legitimate history. Oh, and thanks for passing along Patton's most paranoid and racist remarks about the Russian people as gospel truth!
• 
  Bob

  Note to O'Reilly and Dugard: Fire your editor! Or better yet, kill him. This is one of the most poorly written novels I have ever tried to read. Why do I call it a novel when it's actually historical fiction? The very fact that I can say that should give you a clue. Why do I say "tried to read?" That's because after only 75 pages I don't think I can finish it.
  
  To be fair I don't think this book is a complete waste. It would sit quite nicely in the "Humor" section of any library. But I do think about all the trees who sacrificed their lives for these pages. Any author who can tell you what a person is thinking and then analyze his thoughts should have his artistic license revoked. Even O'Reilly says he likes to take "a novel approach to history." Now that's a fact.
  
  You would be better off going to Wikipedia. The authors can't even decide if these events took place over 70 years ago or are happening today. The mixing of past and present tense is both awkward and annoying; ie, "August 3,1943, more than a month prior. Patton is visiting the Fifteenth Division Hospital..." Did you catch that? That is, or should I say "was", also a sentence fragment.
  
  I hate reading books that make me feel like I should be a high school English teacher, worrying that my red pen is about to run out of ink. Too many cliches; "Rain drizzles down." Gee, thanks for the weather update. I always I thought it went up. "Bullets whiz past." Whiz? Really? I thought that only happens when I take a leak. Some of the colorful, dramatic embellishments and attention to unknowable details are pretty weird. Obviously, this is a self-serving ploy on the part of the authors, designed to create a sense of thorough investigation.
  
  Note to fans of these authors: Be sure to preorder the next book in their "Killing History" series. (victim yet to be determined) O'Reilly claims to have his sights set on several "persons of interest." He is awaiting confirmation of foul play and always tries to notify the next of kin prior to publication.
  Warning to Cleopatra and Jim Morrison: You may be next on O'Reilly's hit list.
  
  I realize some readers of this review might argue that such a colorful character should be forgiven any lapse in judgement and allowed free rein to charge off into the hinterland unencumbered by the constraints of conventional wisdom. I mean O'Reilly, not Patton.
  
  Now allow me to make a toast to the subject of this roast, Bill O'Reilly, the "King of Conjecture and Controversy."
  
  Did I forget to mention that I didn't like this book? However, I must admit I enjoyed writing this review.
  
• 
  J Stanley

  Very good review of the days before the end of the war. Lots of questions left unanswered, and seems that a cover up could be in play. I agree the case needs to be reopened, and files need found. What I love best is the things I learned, and the details I picked up. I have studied quite a bit on this time in WWII and heard some personal details from people involved. The use of personal journals kept truly opens up what it was like, and how the people involved acted. The authors did a great job in capturing the history and the story.
• 
  Mark Mitchell

  Very disappointing. If you have read anything about World War II and if you have ever watched the movies Patton and The Last Days of Patton you will learn nothing new by reading the book. This was my second O'Reilly book, and I thought Killing Jesus was excellent and have recommended it many times, but this one does not get my recommendation.
• 
  Gerard

  Fantastic book!!
• 
  Cammie

  O'Reilly's Killing Patton provides a look at WWII, especially those in charge.
  While I have read much WWII historical fiction and Holocaust accounts, the life, leadership, and death of George S. Patton, Jr., are not something I am very familiar with other than to know he was a general during WWII. O'Reilly's factual accounts are very informative.
• 
  Laura

  Patton is such an intriguing character, but this book meanders around much of WW2 that is already known. For years speculation around his death included Ike, Stalin, etc. as having motives to want Patton dead. Nothing new here, doesn't even really build much of a case for various people wanting him dead except for Patton's outspoken opinion about the Russians being the true enemy. Didn't even bring up Ike's motives and ruthlessness, perhaps due to O'Rielly's far right leanings. More fluff to capitalize on the previous success of the "Killing" series. I kept reading to find out what they had, but O'Rielly, true to his own character is more fluff than substance. Basically leaves the story at "we couldn't find anything to support a story". Don't bother
• 
  thewanderingjew

  I have listened to a couple of other Bill O’Reilly books. They were all read by him, and he did a pretty good job. However, this one disappointed me. He has a speech impediment which I never realized before, and it was distracting. Also, his pronunciation of some words was off as was his emphasis in some places. For this book, he should have had an outside reader.
  The narrative’s timeline began at the end and then filled in the missing spaces, but often it was choppy and confusing because he bounced around from time frame to time frame, country to country and battle to battle. There were some interesting anecdotes that I had not heard before, but for the most part, it was information that was “old hat”. Eisenhower, Marshall, Montgomery, MacArthur, and Rommel were among those featured in the book along with Patton.
  The title of the book “Killing Patton” did not fulfill its promise. It could easily have been called “Killing Hitler”, if you consider the amount of time spent on both men. It was a detailed investigation of several battles fought during the war, some with Patton at the head, and some with Patton’s absence. Patton had a somewhat tarnished reputation because of his violent treatment of soldiers who didn’t fit his ideal mold, who didn’t seem to be courageous or brave enough to meet his standards. He was a harsh and angry taskmaster, but those that believed in him respected him and loved him. He was brave and he was a patriot, dedicated to the war and his country. Although he remained married to a wife that adored him, he was not loyal. Apparently, neither was Eisenhower. He and Mamie were married for decades, but he, too, had a mistress.
  History aficionados will have an easier time following the battles, geographic areas and timeline, but anyone who is not completely familiar with WWII and its various battlegrounds will have a harder time. Because Patton served during WWII there was a great deal of information provided about the battles fought and the tragedy of the Holocaust and its victims. Then the book covered the negotiations between the major powers, Roosevelt and Stalin, carving up Europe, Churchill being largely excluded, Truman rising to the Presidency and handling the helm well.
  The best part of the book was the end, both the afterward and the summing up which provided the most important information about all of the people mentioned in the book. The attempts on Patton’s life, and the possibility that he was murdered, were explained more carefully, clearing up some of the confusion as a result of the disjointedness of the book, but no actual proof was offered to show if he was truly murdered, but the innuendo is there and points the reader in that direction. Using journals and letters and other written evidence, there are some conclusions drawn that are not totally credible.
  In the end, the book seemed more about the battles, the other generals and the victims of the war, rather than Patton, alone. It was too light, too thin to truly engage my interest. It was enjoyable, but it was not very enlightening.
• 
  Licha

  I really enjoy reading Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard’s books. I wish history had been this fascinating when we were taught in school. For all the negativity surrounding O’Reilly due to his political views, I give him credit for making history entertaining and opening up my curiosity to research other historical events or people mentioned in his books. People forget about Dugard, who is probably the main writer here. They would rather knock these books down because of the O’Reilly name being attached to them. It’s a shame because these books seem to be well researched and have fascinating, at times intimate details of the involved players that make them seem more human instead of so textbook cookie-cutter style. The style of writing puts the reader right where the action is making it suspenseful even when the reader knows what’s going to happen. I guess it’s pretty obvious I’m a fan of these books.
  
  Killing Patton was completely new territory for me. I had no idea who Patton was other than there was a 70’s movie made of him starring George C. Scott. I didn’t learn much about Patton, the person, in this book. This was more about the key players in WWII and their struggle to win the war. I got to know Patton as a general and found him to be admirable, but there was little about Patton the man. I suppose that’s not what this book was about, but to really get to know the whole picture of who he was would have made for a complete portrait of the man and his leadership as a general. I love that Patton was a man who stood up for what was right and was vocal about it, even if it went against the current and caused him trouble.
  
  The book had great information about Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman, etc. This is also the first time I read that although the war was finally over, it really wasn’t over for some of the Germans. Russia felt entitled to steal their homes, rape their women, terrorize them as a whole because it was their just rewards after having fought this war. Patton had been against the Russians, but no one wanted to listen to him. What would have happened had they heeded Patton and put a stop to the atrocities that the Russians committed against these people?
  
  The one negative I had was that there were too many weapon, plane, tank names that were hard for me to glance over. As someone who is not into that kind of stuff, it was perhaps unnecessary to my reading progress. I would have still been able to come away with the story if these items had not been given their proper name. There were also a bit too many battle names that were hard for me to keep track of and made the flow of reading a little slower, but I’m aware that that’s just my personal taste. As a whole, this book was a great read and I think kids could benefit from reading these books in high school or middle school. As an adult, they are entertaining while being informative.
  
• 
  David Lucero

  This is an inside look at the career and tragic death of the best American general of WWII. The authors go into the delicate details of Patton and his career, his enemies, friends, along with detailed information about those who impacted, and were impacted by his presence. It's not just about Patton, but other men of the war. I've always found him to be an interesting man and pretty much believed his death was the result of fellow Americans anxious to silence him, but I won't spoil it for you. I'll let you decide by reading this highly educational and enjoyable book. It sheds light on decisions made by our government and allies that make me feel angry at their lack of dignity. I particularly enjoyed the details about how Patton's decisions during crucial battles like the Battle of the Bulge demonstrated how great a general he really was. I highly recommend this book. If you love history, you'll enjoy it.
  
  David Lucero, author
  
  www.lucerobooks.com
  
• 
  Vannetta Chapman

  Excellent book.
  Well researched and well told.
  It certainly helped me to understand a bit more about my father's generation--those who fought in WWII.
  And it raises some interesting questions!
  
  Highly recommend.