OT - history - general Patton's death

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:03 pm

Any of you who are history buffs hear of this before...?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -book.html

Nothing surprises me anymore, that's for sure!

JustaJeepGuy · Post by **JustaJeepGuy** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:16 pm

The theory is shaky, to me. Yes, Patton wanted to take Berlin, but it had been agreed long before, by higher-ups, that the Soviets would get that piece of Germany. The Soviets took 100,000 casualties just taking Berlin. Would anyone prefer that those had been American casualties? I SERIOUSLY doubt that Wild Bill Donovan would have colluded with Russians to assassinate a personage like Patton. Douglas MacArthur was as much a controversial figure as Patton, and he wasn't taken out. Someone's looking for sensationalism in a book, that's all.

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:26 pm

"Someone's looking for sensationalism in a book, that's all."
--JustAJeepGuy

You could be very onto something....

Post by **Hobie** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:36 pm

So much malarkey.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:46 pm

Ray Newman wrote:"Someone's looking for sensationalism in a book, that's all."
--JustAJeepGuy
You could be very onto something....

Sensationalism in a book...? Who'd a'thunk it!

Just curious.

HEAD0001 · Post by **HEAD0001** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:05 pm

I once saw an interview with his Grandson. He was not a conspiracy theory person, but he thought there was something to the theory. He believed the Russians had something to do with the car accident. He felt it had to do with the fact that General Patton wanted to march onto Moscow. From what I could decipher from the reading I have done, General Patton figured we were going to have to go to Moscow sooner or later. And I believe he thought he was just the General to do it.

It was a shame the way he died. He was truly a great American. And he was usually right in his predictions. He was certainly right about tank warfare.

I do not think there would have been as many American casualties if we(the Anmericans) took Berlin. I do not think the Germans were afraid of what we as Americans would do to Berlin. However I believe the Germans were terrified of what the Russians were going to do to Berlin(and them). And rightfully so. Tom.

morgan in nm · Post by **morgan in nm** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:16 pm

I have heard of this theory for over 20 years now and I am still not entirely convinced. Formerly in 2nd armor, stories like this interest me but they haven't proved this in any way. I agree that if he had lived, Eisenhower might not have been president. If you read his diaries, the hatred for one another is unsurpassed. It doesn't say for sure why though so maybe a large portion of the theory is true.

As a point of interest, when Patton was talking to Eisenhower about Berlin,(according to his diaries), Eisenhower had the same reservations about the casualties and that is why he chose to give it to the russians. "What good can come of America taking Berlin." Patton said and I quote, "History will tell us." It turned out that there was massive amounts of technology that fell into russian hands.

bogus bill · Post by **bogus bill** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:39 pm

I never heard the theory. But as a sidenote, I have a uncle, dads brother, that also drove patton a few times. Uncle Art is still liveing, almost 90. He was a MP and I belive a interperter at times. He and dads 1st language were german. Years ago he mentioned to me he was assigned to drive patton a couple times. I know he froze his feet in the bulge. He also was just about the first kid in wisconsin to be drafted I been told. I have a picture of him in uniform in my geneology program but dont know how to post it here.

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:54 pm

Bogus Bill: has your uncle ever said anything specific about Patton?

From what I've read & heard about Patton, I have the impression he knew he was just the man to take Berlin & win the war. Probably thought he would be a much better Supreme Allied Commander?? He may have even thought himself as a future president, a la US Grant.

I think we tend to forget that leaders a@ this level have tremendous egos & are often concerned as to how they will be portrayed by history; hence they say a great deal, look for photo ops, ardently keep diaries, record meetings, etc.

As for Eisenhower, I often thought that many don't appreciate his position. Trying to deal w/ allies who seemed to act in concert to defeat the Germans was one thing. But trying to deal w/ the different opinions & pressure as to how it should be done, who should do it, & what to do w/ aftermath, must have been a tremendous burden. Then there were the politicians to deal w/.

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:18 pm

In my mind, I have always wondered if there wasn't more to Patton's death then just a vehicle accident. And I can't remember where, but I have heard that he was murdered, before.

However, I didn't know he was riding in a Caddy, I had always heard that he was killed in a Jeep.

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:27 pm

Lastmohecken: story that I read he was riding in a military staff car. I can't recall if what company made the staff car was mentioned.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:48 pm

We have had many deaths in my family over the years and there was never anything at all suspicious in any one of them but many deaths in these high stakes affairs are very suspicious.

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:00 pm

Old Savage: I think they maybe suspicious because when persons of notoriety are involved, more people take notice.

& of course there are some among us who look for a conspiracy in everything. & w/ the internet, they have easy access to the like-minded....

For example, when Rep. Sonny Bono (of Sonny & Cher fame) was killed while skiing --he lost control & skied or slid into a tree -- there was a guy on the internet claiming that it was a political hit.

Same thing when JFK jr. went down in a plane crash. The internet rumors, supermarket tabloids, etc., were filled w/ conspiracies, etc.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:16 pm

I always thought it was weird when Bono got killed myself, but then a few years later when the same thing happened to that Kennedy kid I figured it must happen more than what we know about. someone from that part of the country might confirm or deny that, we don't do much snow skiing here in Fla.

As for Patton, if you actually read the book "Band of Brothers" by Stephen Ambrose instead of just watching the movie he talks about a high number of troopers that were killed in auto accidents in the days right after the war. It happened so much that the high command actually had to put out some tighter regulations about soldiers driving especially driving and drinking.

bogus bill · Post by **bogus bill** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:29 pm

Ray, no I cant recall him going in detail. However I will make a point of asking him this spring when I go back to wisconsin. He isnt much for the telephone!
There were family storys that said when he 1st come back from the war people would see him inspecting a bridge for mines before he would walk across! Far as I know he has been normal since after that. He lives to fish!

RSY · Post by **RSY** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:17 am

JustaJeepGuy wrote:The Soviets took 100,000 casualties just taking Berlin. Would anyone prefer that those had been American casualties?

We would not have taken that many casualties. The Germans would not have fought us that hard and would likely have surrendered earlier had it been us at the gates. We and the Soviets were much different enemies in the hearts and minds of the Germans. That is indisputable.

Scott

Gun Smith · Post by **Gun Smith** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:58 am

The problem with the death of anyone perceived as larger than life is that it can't be as simple as that. There has to be more to the story. And we Americans do love our conspiracies.

oldmax · Post by **oldmax** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:33 pm

Patton knew early on that the best tactic was a quick strike into Germany , better tactic than
letting Montgomery diddle his way accross Eroupe.

Interesting, The Allies ( France & Germany ) declared WAR to try to protect Poland
from The Germans, Than surrendered Poland ( along with Roosevelt ) to The Russians..
Poland Got screwed twice in the same war !

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:17 pm

Rusty wrote:
As for Patton, if you actually read the book "Band of Brothers" by Stephen Ambrose instead of just watching the movie he talks about a high number of troopers that were killed in auto accidents in the days right after the war. It happened so much that the high command actually had to put out some tighter regulations about soldiers driving especially driving and drinking.

I guess they did have quite a few wrecks. I know an old man who I have known all of my life, that fought in WWII and had to stay a while after the war, who told me of several wrecks, he witnessed. He also finally received a silver star for saving the lives of several, as a result of one wreck, where the big truck they were riding in ran off of the road and into a river. He swam out, and then relized that there were several others that couldn't make, and went back and got them all safetly out of the water.

Also, there were lots of motorcycle wrecks, with GI's getting access to motor pools towards the end of the war or right after the war. He had a motorcycle wreck himself, and got skinned pretty bad. He told me they were suffering more motorcycle casualitys then any other kind at one point, and finally had to limit access to the motorcycles in the motorpools.

Also, Off topic, but maybe of interest is the fact that he killed a lot of deer over there in Europe, around the end of the war. It was against the law, but being an old country boy from Arkansas, poaching didn't seem like much of a crime to him back then, and I recond they got tired of the ARMY menu. He told me once he probably killed better then sixty deer over there, which they would fix on a regular basis. He told me that even the officers would look the other way, regarding this lawless habit of his, and would often come around for a plate of venison. I recond he shot those deer with his M1 Grande and military ball.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:16 pm

In a word......B.S.!!!! jd45

DixieBoy · Post by **DixieBoy** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:53 pm

I'm no Patton expert, but a bit of an aficionado when it comes to Patton. There are a couple of links I'd like to share with you guys who admire and/or find yourself interested in Patton. For the record, I don't buy the assassination theory, but Patton sure did tick off a good many of his "superiors."

A great Patton site, which includes the original (and uncut) speech which many of us saw in the great George C. Scott film is this one: http://www.pattonhq.com

For an honest (and, I believe, historically accurate) take on the controversy surrounding whether Patton was right about the European "endgame" in the spring of 1945, check out this one:

http://www.takistopdrawer.us/2005/april ... ril-02.htm

I believe that Taki is dead on correct in stating that the Germans were fighting much more ferociously on the Eastern Front than they were on the Western Front. Many Wehrmacht soldiers were literally running to the west, in order to surrender to the Americans and British. The notion that Eisenhower saved 100,000 American lives by stating the losses of the Russians in taking Berlin is a bogus argument.

I believe that Patton had no political aspirations, certainly he did not covet the presidency, unlike more recent "political" generals. That's not to say that he didn't have a huge ego, of course he did. So what ?

If one of the lessons the world supposedly learned from World War Two was "never again," then Patton was 100% correct. In the decades after victory over Germany the Russians killed many more of the citizens of its satellite countries. This is still not taught in most schools today, and when I teach the kids in my own history classes about it, it comes as a shock.

Patton absolutely despised the Russians, communism, and anybody who *****-footed around with them. I think that he was thick headed in understanding Ike's delicate position as Supreme Commander, but remember, Churchill and Montgomery both completely agreed with Patton about the Russians in the spring of 1945. Monty received additional decorations at the end of the war, and was certainly never chastised about holding these views. Patton, on the other hand, was sacked.

Just goes to show you that political correctness had already reared its ugly head in 1945.

This is a great thread, even if I don't agree with the conspiracy theory. - DixieBoy

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:15 am

Patton assassinated? Probably not. Hate Ike? You betcha, and with some good reason. Ike was, by almost any account, a dullard (graduated at the bottom 1/3 or something of his class), and Patton likely felt he forgot more about warefare than Ike ever knew. But Patton was nobody's diplomat, a hothead (famously), and a pee poor manager unless those "managed" were subordinated who could come under his wrath. YES, many willingly followed him into hell (I had one uncle who went across north Africa and all of Europe with Patton, and loved the man with all his heart), but he was a bastard of immeasurable proportions, narrowminded and fanatical, decidedly NOT Supreme commander/diplomatic material. Ike was easy going, a "massage therapist" type, who could grease wheels and make stuff work despite the egos (imagine Patton and Montgomery in the same war room???)

In the end, car wrecks were then, and are now, a leading cause of non-combat death. No surprize there (anybody here ever drive a forties vintage car? they weren't great on a good day).

JustaJeepGuy · Post by **JustaJeepGuy** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:34 am

DixieBoy said:

"The notion that Eisenhower saved 100,000 American lives by stating the losses of the Russians in taking Berlin is a bogus argument."

That 100,000 casualty figure is what the Russians suffered in the battle for Berlin. The Russian general who led the battle was always angry that Stalin made him go in and take the city. He would have preferred to just encircle the city and starve out the defenders.

Also, again, Patton wanted to go into Berlin, but it had already been agreed by FDR and Churchill and Stalin that Berlin would be way inside the Russian zone, and so even if Patton had gotten there first, he would have ended up giving the city to Stalin anyway. It wasn't the best choice, but the agreement was a done deal by April '45, before FDR died.

DixieBoy · Post by **DixieBoy** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:46 am

btt - Thought I'd bump this up for those who missed the Patton links. Pretty good stuff. - DixieBoy

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:27 am

As has been said before, I don't think we would have lost 100,000 men taking Berlin. Aside from other reasons mentioned, Russian miliary doctrine was a meat grinder for its soldiers. Our tactics were far more likely to save soldiers than Russian tactics. It is an apples/oranges comparison.

I don't doubt the Russians would have loved to off Patton. Whether they did or not, I couldn't say. I do remember my dad talking about theories that Patton's auto accident wasn't accidental 20 years ago when we watched the movie together.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:56 pm

Nice post DixieBoy!

Like to add a couple of my own comments. Remember that at the time Patton crossed the Elbe (against Eisenhower's wishes) that the Germans still had over 1,000,000 troops within the Berlin proper and that they still had a reserve force of totalling 8,000,000 to call upon in the protection of Berlin. Because of the possibility of Patton beating the Russians to Berlin, the Wehrmacht hiearchy had the reserves stand down (predominately in the south and in Austria). Just a side note, my great uncle was in the Wehrmacht (he is closing on 89 years old), conscripted in June of 1939 at Augenburgisch/Liepzig, and eventually spent the war primarily in North Africa and Italy (where he was at the end of hostilities). The stories that he tells, makes one wonder about what the Russians were really up to as the war was coming to a close. His Army Division after the capitulation was supposed to carry their arms to a Russian check point north of Vienna, but his CO re-routed to Salzburg. The CO had his troops relinquish their weapons before they got to Salzburg (trucks carried them to places unknown, my great uncle believes that they are buried in a cave in Austria to this day) because he did not want them falling into Russian hands. He then had all troops that were from what was to become the "Russian" zone have the option of having false papers made to show domicile in a different sector (my great uncle used Stuttgart since he had relatives there). When they made it to Munich, the CO formally surrendered, but submitted a letter from Patton that requested submission to US forces. Thankfully, my great uncle, was one of the first processed and started the trip to Stuttgart the same day as the majority of the division was rounded up and put on train to Dresden and given to the Russians (not one of his army buddies that made this trip was heard from again) because of Eisenhower's wishes. Even before the end of the war, Patton was held in high regard by the Germans as being an honorable foe, where as Eisenhower was nothing but a politician.

If Patton would have been allowed to go to Berlin before the Russians got there, the remaining German Army would have joined him to chase the Russians back to Moscow...no way was Eisenhower going to allow Patton to facilitate a change in the expected new world order. Still I believe that there was not a conspiracy to eliminate Patton, but there was one to make him impotent in the scheme of things. His next post most likely would have been Guam.

bogus bill · Post by **bogus bill** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:19 pm

Old time hunter. I also am from wisconsin and had relatives on both sides of the war. I belive my grandmother left many relatives over there, brothers, sisters nephews etc. Dad said he didnt learn english untill he went to school. One of my grandmothers brothers was in the russian army probley back in 1906 or so. Dad had a younger brother that I understand was about the 1st to be drafted in wisconsin. (that was due to the head of the local draft board being polish), also another brother just after that. I used to eat those storys up when they all came back from the war.
I used to have a girl friend that was born in berlin in 1941. The russians held her dad until in the early 50s. Counting both sides of my family, uncles, and aunts husbands that were in the war I belive there were 8 or 9, and although several came back wounded every one of them came back! I was raised around Berlin Wisconsin.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Bogus Bill,

My immediate family hails from Marinette County, but originated in the Hamburg area of Germany(from there to Bremen 1847, northern FIBland, and then to Wisconsin as braumeister's and mechanics). Even had a relative that was a Civil War General that only spoke German! Still have relatives in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Austria, and Prussia (all of the same family)...also one that we are not allowed to talk with in the Czech republic(blasphemy). And that is on one side of the family. The other side, Altenburgisch/Leipzig and Stuttgart to Ontario, Canada in 1815, back to Munich until 1841, then back to Mitchell/Stratford Ont. Somehow that set of grandparents ended up in Door County, Wisconsin right after WWI (their entire clan stayed in the Mitchell-Stratford area to this day!). My great uncle actually was in a German division opposite his very brother in a Canadian division in Egypt late in 1940, and best yet, they even wrote to each other!

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:00 pm

I think that some people had a hard time believing that Patton who had gone through combat and other trials and tribulations during WWII without a scratch, died as a result of a simple auto accident after the war.

They've been looking for another explanation since his death. They're called conspiracy theorist.

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:43 pm

HEAD0001 wrote: He felt it had to do with the fact that General Patton wanted to march onto Moscow. From what I could decipher from the reading I have done, General Patton figured we were going to have to go to Moscow sooner or later. Tom.

Thats what I have always believed. Smart people I know educated me on this and they claim it got too political. Patton said "to he_l" with the Russians, We can take it all, why share anything!"

I take it "our" people iced him.---------Sixgun

JustaJeepGuy · Post by **JustaJeepGuy** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:35 am

I don't know about Patton's being able to "take it all..."; the Russians had over 1,000,000 experienced combat troops just in Germany in May '45. Trying to fight to Moscow would have been some HARD fighting! (I got the info from a book I read a decade or so ago, but I can't recall the name/author. The premise was that Stalin had that many troops in place already, and they would have been loath to give up their gains.)

ole pizen slinger · Post by **ole pizen slinger** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:04 pm

Since the topic is "General G. S. Patton", I have a question of you history buffs. There was a movie about "Ike" which starred Tom Sellick. In this movie Patton was shown to "beg" Ike for his job and then tell his jeep driver "I played him like a drum". Any of you know if this is true?
OPS

Doc Hudson · Post by **Doc Hudson** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:56 pm

I didn't read the article once I learned the gist of it, but I'll bet you a donut and cup of coffee that the author wears an aluminum foil hat.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:46 pm

JustaJeepGuy wrote:I don't know about Patton's being able to "take it all..."; the Russians had over 1,000,000 experienced combat troops just in Germany in May '45. Trying to fight to Moscow would have been some HARD fighting! (I got the info from a book I read a decade or so ago, but I can't recall the name/author. The premise was that Stalin had that many troops in place already, and they would have been loath to give up their gains.)

How many atomic bombs did the Soviets have at the time?

RSY · Post by **RSY** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:56 pm

JustaJeepGuy wrote:I don't know about Patton's being able to "take it all..."; the Russians had over 1,000,000 experienced combat troops just in Germany in May '45. Trying to fight to Moscow would have been some HARD fighting! (I got the info from a book I read a decade or so ago, but I can't recall the name/author. The premise was that Stalin had that many troops in place already, and they would have been loath to give up their gains.)

I'll have to call "BS" on that line of thinking. Just as the Russians were a different enemy to the Germans than we were, we would have been a different enemy to the Russians than were the Germans.

1. I think you would have seen some major desertions on the part of the Russians once it became apparent that we would not treat the civilian populace as did the Germans in Barbarossa.

2. One cannot underestimate the effect of removing US material support of the USSR had we decided to keep rolling East.

3. We could have hit them from the Pacific side, too; forcing them to fight on two fronts. The 1 million in eastern Germany would have been split up and redeployed in short order. They would not have weathered that well, at all.

4. And last, but certainly not least, the Russians had never experienced anything like the full might of the USAAF in its wartime prime. That's not even taking into consideration the Navy and Marine aviation assets that would be free to fly against them once Japan was in the can. Can you imagine 24 Essex-Class and a couple of Midway-Class carriers running ops out of the Black Sea???

General George was right. But, I don't know if the country could have been sold on it. There was already almost an Army mutiny in Europe when they realized they might have to go invade Japan after they'd won "their" war against the Third Reich.

Thoughts?

Scott

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:41 pm

"There was already almost an Army mutiny in Europe when they realized they might have to go invade Japan after they'd won 'their' war against the Third Reich."
--RSY

I heard some talk of that too. But let's not forget that by 1945, the U.S home front was starting to become war weary. People were appalled @ the casualties from Iwo Jima & Okinawa. The major newspapers & people were starting to question the casualties. The invasion of Japan & its potential/associated cost in men & material weighed heavily on John & Jane Q. Public's mind.

& even if Patton would have gone east, who would have supported the US? By 1945, the UK & France were probably in no shape to continue on. They were in the game since 1939 w/o respite. & what would have the justification been for support from the UK? I don’t think that UK would have helped out. I also think that the USSR would have fought tooth & nail. I don't think they were in a any mood to give up their gains.

& something else. Pattton liked being in the limelight. Maybe all of his talk of going east was a maneuver by him to keep himself & his views in the news even though he knew there no chance of it ever happening. I heard people speculate about this too.

RSY · Post by **RSY** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:23 am

Ray Newman wrote:I also think that the USSR would have fought tooth & nail. I don't think they were in a any mood to give up their gains.

I think the 8th, 15th and 20th Air Forces filling the Soviet skies with silver B-29s would have gone a long way toward changing that mood. Massive Russian ground formations would have been particularly susceptible to our airpower.

Of course, as we both mentioned, I doubt the nation could have stomached a campaign to Moscow.

Scott

JustaJeepGuy · Post by **JustaJeepGuy** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:30 am

RSY wrote:
JustaJeepGuy wrote:I don't know about Patton's being able to "take it all..."; the Russians had over 1,000,000 experienced combat troops just in Germany in May '45. Trying to fight to Moscow would have been some HARD fighting! (I got the info from a book I read a decade or so ago, but I can't recall the name/author. The premise was that Stalin had that many troops in place already, and they would have been loath to give up their gains.)
I'll have to call "BS" on that line of thinking. Just as the Russians were a different enemy to the Germans than we were, we would have been a different enemy to the Russians than were the Germans.

Well, as I said, I read that book, and it was the author's contention that 1 million combat troops in place would have been quite formidable. As to dropping atomic bombs, or even just a "normal" bombing campaign, the civilian populace of the Soviet Union would have suffered, and the war would REALLY have been known to the Soviets as "The Great Patriotic War". Taking out Stalin without too much collateral damage might have changed things, though. Even if Patton had "made it look like THEY started it", it wouldn't have been any kind of cakewalk, and having Germans on our side would NOT have helped.

DixieBoy · Post by **DixieBoy** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:44 pm

Hey, glad to see this thread re-surface. RSY, you make some really good points.

Now that the war is over for 63+ years, it's hard to say exactly how things might have gone if Patton had gotten his way, and gone to work pushing the Russians back to Moscow like he wanted. It is true that Americans at home were "war weary" by 1945, and the soldiers and airmen comprising the US Armed Forces in Europe had made "Home Alive in '45" their motto for quite some time by the date of the German surrender. And it's true that the British treasury was essentially empty by the spring of 1945. But...

The point made about immediate ending of aid to Russia is a biggie. WE (the good old USA) funded much of their military effort from the early years of the war. How hard that would have hit the Russians is hard to say now, but it's a really good point. Remember too, the Russian civilian population had been living on essentially nothing since the latter part of 1941, so they would have felt the sting of an end to US financial assistance.

This is one of the great debates of the Second World War, and often wish that Patton had been allowed to re-arm his 10 German divisions and drive towards Moscow. True, the Russians had a million men in Germany by 1945, but those heavy US bombers mentioned earlier could have played a huge role in forcing the Russians back where they belonged.

I love threads like this; I always learn something. - DixieBoy

OT - history - general Patton's death

OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death

Re: OT - history - general Patton's death