Did the Russians kill General Patton? Bill O'Reilly explores the fascinating evidence

September 25, 2014

Writer

If there is one person who could give Glenn a run for his money when it comes to a love of history, it might by Bill O'Reilly. In his new book Killing Patton, O'Reilly looks at the death of General George Patton and presents evidence that he wan't killed in an accidental car crash, but his death was orchestrated by Stalin and the Russians. He joined Glenn on TheBlaze TV Wednesday night to discuss the theory, and Glenn had a surprise piece of history to share with him before the segment ended.

Watch the interview below or scroll down to read the transcript of the segment.

Glenn: It’s always a special day when we have Mr. Bill O’Reilly on the program because of our love-hate relationship. I love him, he hates me.

Bill: That’s not true—propaganda.

Glenn: Bill, how are you, sir?

Bill: I’m the same, Beck.

Glenn: That’s sad.

Bill: I actually said very nice things about you today to a number of people, so don’t be spreading this propaganda that I don’t like you.

Glenn: No, I tell you, I said when I went on the radio today I absolutely love our relationship. You have always been the kindest to me, the most professional, and probably the biggest help next to Mr. Ailes of anybody in my career, and I appreciate it. So Bill, I want to tell you, you’re the author of a new book called Killing Patton. I want to get to it, but I also want to save some time because I have some things that even the great Bill O’Reilly does not have that I think you’ll be fascinated when it comes to Patton. We brought it in from the library. So your theory on Killing Patton is the Russians poisoned him.

Bill: Yeah, they killed him because he wanted to fight the Russians after World War II, after the collapse of the Third Reich. He believed that Stalin and the Russian hierarchy were going to try to take over the world and were not going to give up the occupied lands, and he was very vocal about it. And Stalin, weakened after the brutal fight with the Reich, didn’t want that to get out, so the Russians went after Patton, and they got him.

Glenn: Okay, so was this ever investigated at all?

Bill: Yes, it was investigated a couple of times, but after Patton was in that auto accident, the Army totally blew the investigation. Nobody can find the records. No autopsy after Patton was taken to the hospital partially paralyzed. He was talking to the nurses, drinking cognac. He goes to sleep, he winds up dead. Nobody knows why. They put his body in the ground. They couldn’t get it in the ground fast enough. So there’s a lot of suspicious stuff that we lay out in the book.

Glenn: I mean, Bill, I know, you’re going to run out of people, you know, that have been killed or dead here soon with the number of books you put out. It’s shameful, Bill.

Bill: One a year, Beck.

Glenn: Yeah, it’s shameful. But anyway, where did you get this? Who’s your co-author? What’s the researcher’s name?

Bill: Martin Dugard.

Glenn: Okay, and so did he bring this to you? How does this work with you on these killing things?

Bill: No, I select the topics, and I was always interested in this crazy theory that a four-star general is driving down a road in Germany. One day later he was supposed to go back to the United States to do a speaking tour where he was going to expose the Soviet Union and Stalin, and then all of a sudden an army truck smashes into his vehicle in broad daylight for no reason, and all the records disappear of the investigation of the accident. That piqued my interest. So once I got the history books underway, and I wanted to tell the story of the last six months of World War II in Europe, it all came together.

Glenn: So did you get any documentation in the book from the Soviet Union? Did you go through any of the…you know, like the VERONA files, did you look into it?

Bill: A good question, Beck, a very good question. We investigated the plant that they had to make the traceless poison which they used to assassinate a number of people.

Glenn: At this time that’s what they were doing?

Bill: That’s what they were doing. Soviet scientists had perfected this poison that was untraceable and that they had assassinated many people using it. So that’s the angle we took in there.

Glenn: Do you believe you have enough to be able to say…because that’s an important theory and really an important piece of history, and I’ll bet you that the Patton family would agree with this. Just like we did with, you know, Thomas Jefferson, just like we did with Abraham Lincoln, do you think you have enough information to say I think we should exhume the body and take a trace sample?

Bill We are calling for that. We are calling for the investigation into the death of General Patton to be reopened because it certainly…the Army bears a tremendous responsibility for losing virtually every single document associated with that death. So we think it should be reopened, and I lay out the evidence that we compile very vividly. And I could be wrong. I’m not saying 100% certainty, but there is enough evidence in there, compelling evidence, to reopen the investigation, absolutely.

Glenn: What would this have meant, Bill, if he would have lived? What do you think would have happened?

Bill: Well, if he would’ve lived, Patton might have run for president. He wasn’t that political. He wasn’t Eisenhower, but he was fed up. He was fed up with a lot of things. He didn’t feel World War II was fought the right way. He was at loggerheads with Truman. Truman didn’t like Patton at all. So absolutely Patton could’ve come back. He was a national hero. He could have toured the country, and I think he would’ve had enough juice to run for president, and so did a lot of people in Washington.

Glenn: Okay, can I show you some stuff I brought for you?

Bill: Sure.

Glenn: I’m actually coming up to New York. Maybe I’ll pop it on the plane and show it to you, bring it to you.

Bill: Yeah, bring this please.

Glenn: Okay, so here’s a couple of things. This is to the general that he wanted to have follow him into battle. He would be the guy who would sweep up in the campaign in Sicily. He says aside from my personal friendship in taking you through this thing, it is going to hang on a shoestring, and I’m going to have to go ashore in one of the leading waves. I have utter confidence in you and know that on the Flag Ship you’ll see this thing as pushed home in the last extremity that you will lead the last foreign body.

Now, this is he’s asking his friend to be the general behind him and stay on the flagship, but here’s the interesting part, and I thought of you this morning as we talked. He said we have to face the fact we may be repulsed, and I may not come back alive. This is not the first time that he actually hints at I’m not coming back from this. I think he knew one way or another, and I think it was more than just war. He knew he was not coming back alive.

Bill: Well, we document in the book that he told his daughters that. The last time he met with his daughters, he stunned them by saying, you know, I think this is the last time you’re going to see me. And there were two blatant assassination attempts on Patton. Now, you expect that in war, but one of them was from a British Spitfire, and nobody ever figured out why the British plane was firing at Patton’s plane. We have that one in the book as well.

Glenn: Why do you call that one an assassination attempt? Because you know friendly fire happens all the time.

Bill: Look, there’s no record of that British plane landing anywhere or doing anything, and it attacks Patton’s plane. It was only because of the skill of Patton’s pilot that he survived. It wasn’t like a German plane attacking them. It was a British plane. Now, the British lent some of their planes to Polish pilots and to Russian pilots, but there’s no—and we document this very thoroughly in Killing Patton—no record of that plane. So Patton knew there were guys out to get him. There’s no question.

Glenn: And is your theory that this was a British plane taken by the Communists?

Bill: We don’t know. We just don’t know.

Glenn: Did Patton ever talk about that?

Bill: Oh yeah, Patton, he knew he almost lost his life. In fact, he tried to take a picture of the plane attacking his plane, but his hand was shaking so much that he couldn’t get the lens cap open. Again, that’s what the micro-detail that we have in Killing Patton. It’s just…he knew that he was in danger.

Glenn: But here is what you don’t have. You don’t have the buttons off of his uniform right here. I have them.

Bill: You’re right, Beck. I don’t have those.

Glenn: These are the buttons off of his uniform here. This is a letter, a Christmas letter to his mother where he says hey mom, we went out, and we looked at the tanks this morning, and it’s crazy, the six inches of mud, we couldn’t get anything out.

And this flag here, Bill, this is the flag that flew at his funeral, and it was also the flag, and it’s kind of in question on was this with him during the campaign or was this just at his funeral? And historians have come down to they didn’t make this flag in three days, because, like you said, he died, they threw his body in the ground so fast, they didn’t make another flag, so this was the one that was with him.

Bill: There was very little ceremony.

Glenn: And that’s unusual, isn’t it, Bill?

Bill: Well, here’s another interesting wrinkle. There was very little press around where he was because all the press was in Berlin, because Berlin had been divided into four sectors, all kinds of trouble there. Patton was in Western Germany and about to come back to the USA. There were only a few reporters nosing around, all right? So there wasn’t a lot of press, and everybody accepted the official Washington version, Army version, you know, he died in an automobile accident.

And believe me, when you see this evidence, anybody reading this book, and I’m not a conspiratorialist, you know that. I wrote Killing Kennedy, where I debunked all the conspiracies. So this evidence and the book that we put together, I think every American who cares about their country and World War II should take a look.

Glenn: Okay, so Bill, let me change the subject here with you. We just have a couple of minutes left. How much trouble do you think we are in with ISIS?

Bill: Not with ISIS in particular. I think we’ll be able to degrade and put them on the run, but worldwide terrorism, the jihad isn’t going to stop if you nail the ISIS leadership. They’ll get Baghdadi, and they’ll get the guy who cut the throats of the three, two Americans and the Brit. They’ll get him, but that’s not the point. The point is we’re fighting a worldwide war on terror just us, just the United States. We’re funding everything.

Glenn: But, you know, you laid out, I think, a very good solution basically of a private army, and I wondered if it was even constitutional. I looked it up, and we talked about it after you left. And I think it is actually constitutional.

Bill: It’s absolutely constitutional, and that is the solution for the ground situation, all right? And it doesn’t diminish the United States Armed Forces. It stays the same, all right? But to put together a 25,000 man elite mercenary force paid for by the so-called 50 nations that President Obama tells us are united against the Islamic Jihad, all right? They can easily fund that and to have it under the NATO and American command with oversight from Congress. That means you have a force that can go in rapid deployment anywhere in the world and kill these bastards, all right? Right now we don’t have that, and they know it, so they can get away with murder, literally everywhere, and we don’t do anything about it.

Glenn: And quite honestly, the guy to fight this is Patton. Patton would’ve actually put these people…because the only thing they respect is power.

Bill: That’s right. But we don’t have a general like Patton because our political system won’t tolerate that, and so we don’t have those people. Can you imagine how livid Patton would be seeing Americans beheaded on camera? Can you imagine that? He’d waltz into Syria with the Third Army, and I mean, those guys, they’d be done in a month and a half.

Glenn: Let me tell you something, you don’t need Patton. I know, my grandfather was not a, you know, was not a general. My grandfather would be livid that we are behaving the way we do right now, and quite honestly, it’s an insult to all of the people in the military the way we have hamstrung them and tied their hands.

Bill: And putting the whole world in danger because these people, these jihadists, whether it’s ISIS or Al Qaeda, whatever stupid group you want to mint, if they can weaponize a nuke, which Iran is absolutely trying to do, you’re going to see cities go, and the world better wise up and wise up quick.

Glenn: Let me just make a real quick prediction so you know that I said it. We are going to cause the fall for Assad. Assad will fall. It will only make things much, much worse, and I’m telling you that ISIS is a problem here in the United States. I think we’re headed for something really nasty. Bill, thanks a lot. God bless you.

Bill: Thanks for having me in, Beck.

Glenn: You bet. Name of the book is Killing Patton, available everywhere, Bill O’Reilly. Back in a minute.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep