"Was George S. Patton a Sleazy Suck-Up? ..." Topic

Enough of the heavy stuff. We covered battles from 216 BC to 1916 here, but not a lot thus far about some of the personalities who made these battles, the generals and admirals of military history. Let us change direction and talk about somebody everyone thinks they know: General George S. Patton.

Now a word about heroes…from a man who has worked for a few who are thought of as such, and calls several others "friend." Almost no man or woman who becomes known as a "hero" can live up to that title. With a vanishingly few exceptions none can withstand the scrutiny, just as most of us could not. The majority demonstrate that they are, or were, quite human, and often the products of their own eras. This occurs, if not in their own time, then in the long decades that come later where young historians working on their PhDs swarm like sharks induced into a blood-based frenzy.

Once I was one of those sharks. Sorry. But at least now I have something interesting to pass to you…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Didn't read the article, and don't really care.

America's best general in WWII.

The one the Germans feared the most. I think that says a lot about the man.

Just as well the author of the paper didn't look at McArthur – self serving sleaze does not come anywhere near describing him.

Just another one of those "Was XXXXX a YYYY?" articles.

Agree with Brslee – and, not to make too fine a point on it, Montgomery as well

Not to mention all those Germans who toadied up to Hitler then wrote self-serving memoirs after the war

I sort of feel that any accusation of character flaws for a ww2 general should be accompanied by "but at least he wasn't McArthur" :-)

Patton probably had character flaws but he killed Nazis and that's what was needed.

14 things you didn't know about Patton. Number 8 will shock you!

My favorite WWII zinger quotes:

"Eisenhower was the best clerk I ever had" – MacArthur.

"I studied drama under MacArthur for 8 years in the Philippines" – Eisenhower.

On the OP: Patton was the most aggressive US general of the war. Did he have character flaws? No doubt.

These days it is really hard to separate Patton the man from Patton the movie.

"GERMANS HATE HIM"
"This American general is killing Nazis because of this One Weird Rule"

Definitely a prima donna, but hey, aren't most?

Love the little zinger against academia included by mentioning "young PhDs". The author has probably not read a scholarly military history written in the last 40 years.

I've never been a big Patton fan. I just dont see his accomplishments and overall performances meriting the level of reverence he recieves.

I'm a bit cynical about the "great" generals theory anyway. I believe that at his level of command any supposed genius (or incompotence though that is rare) is leveled to a great degree by the commanders staff and subordinates. George may have said attack but it was his staff, corps and divisional commanders and their staffs that made it happen. They and the overall correlation of allied force vs the Germans won him his reputation.

There is little evidence the Germans knew of him or much cared about him at the time. They cared a great deal about Third Army and what it was doing but who was in charge was probably irrelevant to them.

Agreed, Patton is barely mentioned in any German correspondence during the war. I like the movie but it is entertainment and says more about American society at the time it was made than about WW2.

I'll take Patton over any swill merchant at the Daily Beast.

Things to know about Patton.

* He had the largest casualty rate of any American General
* "Old blood and guts" was a pejorative nickname.
* His soldiers loved him or hated him.

He was a solid commander who never backed down, even when he probably should. His Metz campaign was very costly in human lives. Some of his critics thought he should have bypassed it and let it surrender on its own.

Click bait article.

He hate the Nazis… but the Russians much more!!… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

He did manage to "pin down" a very large portion of the German Army in Normandy for a while, just waiting to see when he would join the fight with "the real invasion".

Not sure too many other American generals would have been able to sell that ruse so convincingly.

Okay…here's the question then….You are an infantry company commander…

You have a choice of having your company serve under Pattons Command, or Mark Clarks' Command in Italy….

Which one would you take?

Never Bradley!!!!… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Clark in Italy? The only General to have no votes for his promotion in rank due to his tossing away units in diversionary attacks!
Look, MacArthur was no better at trying to reduce casualty rates. Those generals who were cautious were deemed ineffective for the most part or promotion away from Divisional and Corps command.
Hia attitude was arrogant and his son who commanded the 2nd Armor Division when I was at Fort Hood was the same way.
Did he get the job done…yes and that is all that mattered.
Remember Grant was called the Butcher by his men and he was still successful and was elected president.

One of the Jackson Wargamer members was an infantryman in the 7th Armored. Always said that if he had ever had a clear shot he would have "shot the SOB." He hated him.

To the original question: no.

The same Mark Clark who threw away 2000 men trying to cross the Rapido with zero chance of success? Patton's attacks may have been costly, but at least they usually succeeded.

It's also worth noting that the US army in general was more aggressively minded than their British counterparts.

A general like Patton got results, but at a cost. But he was hardly unique in doing so.

He'd have been out of place in the British military for example.

Greg "Pappy" Boyington had a quote along the lines of "Show me a hero and I'll show you a bum."

My father – 82nd airborne – loved him.
Said they cancelled several jumps because he captured drop zones.

He hated Montgommery, because he wouldn't attack unless everything was "perfect."

Yet Monty somehow managed to launch one or two El-Alamein-sized assaults every week for three months in Normandy…

Sounds like your Dad was talking out of his hoop.

It's also worth mentioning that only four airborne operations were cancelled because US 3rd Army overran the objective, only two of which were to have involved the 82nd Division.

Another four operations were cancelled when British/Canadian forces overran the objective and another three operations were cancelled in Britanny due to the efforts of Simpson's US 9th Army.

who has the casualty rates for corps commanders? Id be interested in looking at the data.

The article sounds like click bait and I will not read it

Sir B.M. might owe a little of his reputation to Claude Auchinleck. I might mention operation Market Garden and Caen. So that you may study and correct me.

Draw your own conclusions.

I wasn't there. I do believe both were trying to win and save lives.

My opinion is Patton saved lives, shortening campaigns by UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING his resources were overwhelming.

Montgomery was working to save lives based on his previous experiences and the limitations of his manpower and material.

Combine two HUGE egos, mix with the politics of the MAJOR Powers, combine with the HOPES of the WORLD?

Not perfect but, the result was much more than I could have hope for.