logo

42 pages 1 hour read

Bill O'Reilly, Martin Dugard

Killing Patton

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2014

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Themes

Health, Virility, and the Body

In Killing Patton descriptions of physical appearance, health, and virility feature prominently. O’Reilly uses attractiveness of the book’s heroes, and especially their height, as a proxy for the soundness of moral character. Patton “is tall and athletic” (352), while Stalin’s “face is pockmarked, his left arm shorter than the right, and he is the tiniest man in the box” (73). For example, book stresses that Roosevelt was six foot two. The same goes for physical health. Hitler “suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, has an irregular heartbeat, and has long had a problem with skin lesions on his legs” (175). It is almost as if O’Reilly believes Hitler’s moral and political degeneracy manifested in his body. Describing Eisenhower, whom O’Reilly clearly sees as unsympathetically relying on diplomacy and political maneuvering over battle and action, O’Reilly emphasizes that “he carries a small paunch and walks with his shoulders rolled forward” (54). His sedentary attitude to life and war manifested itself in physical corruption.

O’Reilly is also fixated on the sexual prowess of solely male historical figures he depicts. He describes Patton as highly virile, and alleges that by 1944, Hitler was impotent. Yet this virile ideal conflicts with other values, like marital fidelity. Stalin had multiple affairs, Patton and FDR also cheated on their wives and lied about it—only really Churchill and, in his own way, Hitler, remained faithful. The book does not want to fully embrace the rhetoric of masculine sexuality as the ideal of war, full of thrust, penetration, and conquest. The rapes carried out by Red Army soldiers in Eastern Europe show the dangers of taking this idea of virility in warfare too literally.

The book explores another aspect of the male body—fragility, a reminder that even the most powerful men have an essential vulnerability. Stalin suffered heart attacks at Potsdam. Roosevelt, crippled by polio, died of a cerebral hemorrhage a month before the war’s end. An army truck crushed and paralyzed Patton, one of the war’s great tank commanders. As Patton said in his speech before D-Day, “Death, in time, comes to all men” (17). Generals suffer and die just like privates, and the body of the man who once had 25 medals on his uniform ends up in beneath an obscure military hospital in Heidelberg.

Cold War Conspiracies and Cover-Ups

In the Afterword, O’Reilly protests, “Martin Dugard and I are not conspiracy theorists. We write from a factual point of view with no agenda” (401). He knows that he is writing in the conspiracy theory genre, which typically draws attention to events in history around which certain facts are unknown or for which the official explanation is lacking. Conspiracy theories then offer an alternative, and usually sensational, explanation for these historical events and suggest there was a cover-up—that powerful institutions deliberately covered up evidence. The alternative thesis rests on picking holes in the orthodox view, but has little in the way of explicit evidence for its own position. At their worst, conspiracy theories endanger public health (for instance, through movements opposing vaccination or standard contagious disease prevention protocols), promote political unrest (for example, the movement alleging a nefarious “deep state”), and devalue expertise, evidentiary reasoning, and knowledge.

Unsurprisingly, the end of World War II and the start of the Cold War provided fertile ground for conspiracy theories. The chaos in the war’s immediate aftermath, and the intelligence and espionage war between the US and USSR encouraged many strange conspiracies. One of the most famous is that Hitler didn’t commit suicide, but escaped to Brazil. O’Reilly argues that what distinguishes him from a conspiracy theorist is that he just looks at the facts. However, Killing Patton’s conspiracy theory that Patton was assassinated relies on tried and true techniques—pointing to missing documents as evidence of a cover-up, alleging the existence of untraceable poisons, without bringing to bear the kind of archival and primary source-based historical research academics would use to actually learn what transpired.

The Role of “Great Men” in World War II

In Chapter 17, O’Reilly points out that Hitler subscribed to the “Great Man” theory of history—that “the history of the world is but a biography of great men” (279). It’s clear why Hitler adopted this theory: He through charisma and guile, rose from relative obscurity as a corporal to become Chancellor of Germany, and then succeeded in conquering most of Europe.

O’Reilly wants to apply this theory to Patton, “the most audacious, forthright, and brilliant general on either side of the war” (16), whose skill and courage as a commander helped defeat of Fascist Italy, liberate France from the Nazis, and relieve the encircled American forces at Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge.

However, the overall importance of Patton in World War II is debatable. He was no Zhukov, the extraordinary military mind who organized the Soviet victory at Stalingrad, thereby preventing the Germans securing the oil fields of the Caucasus. With or without Patton’s intervention, Germany was already losing the Battle of the Bulge because it lacked fuel for vehicles and faced Allied air superiority. Moreover, it is unclear how much difference German success in this battle would ultimately have made. Capturing Antwerp, splitting British and American forces, and annihilating several Allied armies would not necessarily have let Hitler “successfully [sue] for peace with the west” (107)—the West’s position was too strong elsewhere.

However, Patton’s death may have cut short a possible “Great Man” post-war career in politics. Given his popularity, and the American penchant for electing ex-soldiers (32 out of its 44 presidents served in the military), he may have been elected President. Then, he could have gotten the war with the USSR that he always wanted. It is not hard to imagine, with US-Soviet tensions in this period, how this could have led to nuclear war. Perhaps “killing” Patton actually showed sound foresight, whoever was responsible.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text