The book, Killing Patton starts off in Metz, France. The American soldiers are pushing through the Western Front, closing in on Nazi Germany. The Americans are under fire during the Invasion of Fort Driant. What I like here is Bill O'Reilly's writing style. He did this in Killing Lincoln as well, but he describes a soldier's point of view, not Patton's in this scenario, but the soldier who is experiencing the action, and describes his actions throughout the battle, such as feelings, view of person's surroundings, etc.
Pro's and Con's of Killing Patton. Before this starts, the book was very good, probably one of the best historical books I have read. I checked it's given facts, and for the most part, with the exception of one fact, all of the other facts were correct. Not bad for a politician. Now, onto the pro's and con's.
Pros:
Saying that, I'd like to use an excerpt from the book as an example. This example is about the legendary "Desert Fox", German General and Tank Commander Erwin Rommel was known for his fight against the Allies in North Africa, fighting off Generals Bernard Law Montgomery (Great Britain) and General George Patton (United States). Here is the excerpt:
"But Rommel is not sure whether Hitler knows of his betrayal. He is Germany's most famous general, a man who has shown his loyalty to the Fuhrer through extraordinary service on the field of battle, and a man the Fuhrer holds in high esteem. Until recently, that feeling was mutual. But Hitler will never sue for peace, and this could lead to the complete destruction of Germany. Rommel now has grave doubts about Hitler's ability to lead the war effort, and is in favor for negotiating with the Allies rather than continuing to fight. But he has never voiced this opinion publicly." (O'Reilly 33)
Bill O'Reilly, to me, did a great job of informing the reader about each character, whether major or minor impact, enhancing the book, making it out like its almost a movie in your head. But yes, that is probably the best part of the book, that it goes in-depth.
Pro's and Con's of Killing Patton. Before this starts, the book was very good, probably one of the best historical books I have read. I checked it's given facts, and for the most part, with the exception of one fact, all of the other facts were correct. Not bad for a politician. Now, onto the pro's and con's.
Pros:
- Book goes in-depth with the characters, what they do, who they interact with, what their thoughts are( kinda weird since this takes place in the 1940's), and more.
Saying that, I'd like to use an excerpt from the book as an example. This example is about the legendary "Desert Fox", German General and Tank Commander Erwin Rommel was known for his fight against the Allies in North Africa, fighting off Generals Bernard Law Montgomery (Great Britain) and General George Patton (United States). Here is the excerpt:
"But Rommel is not sure whether Hitler knows of his betrayal. He is Germany's most famous general, a man who has shown his loyalty to the Fuhrer through extraordinary service on the field of battle, and a man the Fuhrer holds in high esteem. Until recently, that feeling was mutual. But Hitler will never sue for peace, and this could lead to the complete destruction of Germany. Rommel now has grave doubts about Hitler's ability to lead the war effort, and is in favor for negotiating with the Allies rather than continuing to fight. But he has never voiced this opinion publicly." (O'Reilly 33)
Bill O'Reilly, to me, did a great job of informing the reader about each character, whether major or minor impact, enhancing the book, making it out like its almost a movie in your head. But yes, that is probably the best part of the book, that it goes in-depth.
- Includes maps of WWII action, pictures marking historical people, events, etc.
The maps included within the book are all on the advancing of the Allied Forces, moving deeper and deeper into the heart of Nazi Germany. Some maps are invasions of forts, such as the Invasion of Fort Driant, a German base. The photographs are of people such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, the President of the United States who held office for most of the war, up until his death after a stroke.
I believe that the added maps and pictures enhance the book in a way to make the book more visual in a way that the reader will know what's going on in the book, to a better level. I wish Bill O'Reilly did this for his other "Killing" novel, Killing Lincoln , since its from the 1800's, and its hard to connect with a book that is set from a time period that is a significant long time ago.
Cons:
• Book is too descriptive and should have started at the end of WWII not a year before it ended.
This was probably the biggest problem I had with the book. I personally read it so I'd learn about how George Patton died, not so much all of the backstory that makes up over 3/4ths of the book. The only good part about the backstory is that its accurate, yet in saying that, it
wasn't necessary.
I think Bill O' Reilly should fix this, because when you look at his "Killing" books, Killing Patton is the only book that doesn't need backstory. I say that in which for Killing Lincoln, the backstory is needed in order to understand why John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln. Same for Killing Kennedy, and Killing Jesus.
Overall, I thought that the book was good, despite the long backstory, it was very informational and helped in my history class as well. Regarding recommendations, I would only recommend this book for people who want to learn about WWII. If your like me, and had only wanted to learn about George Patton, then this isn't the book for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment