After Fox's Bill O'Reilly published his book Killing Patton, the Washington Post wrote this review. the tl;dr of it is that O'Reilly is good at selling books, but very mediocre at writing and history. Also, all of Patton's anti-Semitism was ignored. Some damning quotes imply Patton's hatred of Jews was just a hair better than the Nazis.

OTOH, is it possible that the WP's reviewer overstates his case? Patton's use of language was not that of a lawyer. He was prone to hyperbole and possibly made up numerous boasts of his sexual prowess when he was in late middle age. If this strutting peacock of a man was only moderately anti-Semitic + had a fit of temper one morning + had his routinely impulsive words recorded for posterity, what is our best guess of the actual truth?

Follow-up question - the reviewer uses the shabby treatment of Jewish people in Displaced Person camps as evidence of Patton's anti-Semitism. (Patton was in charge of DP camps after WW2 ended.) How were other DP's treated by comparison? I will go along with the reviewer's assertion if that's the truth, but would like more context.