"Silence Patton " Topic

"It is 73 years since the death of General George S. Patton, but as in life he sets off a storm of controversy. My film Silence Patton raises the question of whether such a flawed character could have been right about his claim that because the Allied troops, some within 200 miles of Berlin, were held back from capturing the capital to let Soviet troops move in, the Cold War was inevitable.

He said it loudly and often enough that he was relieved of command and silenced. Some even believe that the auto accident that claimed his life was no accident. What I've found since the film's release is that Patton's behavior, character and performance on the field is looked at not through the lens of history but is retrofit into the standards of today, forgetting that the 1940s were an ugly, challenging time for the Allies and that Patton was almost uniquely up to the challenge. Was he volatile, bombastic, self-absorbed, reckless? Yes, but he was also politically astute and a brilliant military strategist who delivered badly needed wins.

Questions still abound about Patton's rise and fall. I still have some myself, but here are my answers to the most pressing ones…."
Main page

silencepatton.com/silence-patton

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting …

He absolutely was not "politically astute". If he was, he would have kept his mouth shut about national policies that are Constitutionally left to civilian leadership.
Nevermind the idea that he could have defeated the Soviets
in a continuing war no one wanted.

Capturing Berlin would have changed nothing in the post-war except for a pile more US casualties.

Yes, letting the USSR take Berlin was the right move. A battle that cost @ 3 million casualties.

Pushing back the Russians with US forces is a what if that is interesting to pose but the reality is that it would be impossible to achieve. American forces had enough of a difficult challenge in just pushing back the Germans who were well past their best and at the time substantially occupied with fighting this very same behemoth.The army of the Soviets was no longer so dependent on lendlease subsidies. A pipe dream.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

I think not advancing past the Elbe, and toward Berlin, was the right call. Still, if the allies decided to liberate Eastern Europe I don't know.

From what I've read all parties were pretty exhausted. Incorporating German troops, like the Soviets did Romania's, would take time (that wasn't available). My guess is American moral would also likely plummet (though that may have been universal).

While both sides had become pretty good at doing what they did I believe the allies had a wild card; the USAF. Add to that control of the Baltic and liberating the rest of Germany and Poland seems possible to me. The Balkans, on the other hand, would have probably been a nightmare.

All the above is just my opinion on the military aspect. The allied polity agreeing to the attack on a recent ally, after finally defeating Germany, seems highly unlikely to me.

One of Patton's great virtues was that he saw evil and threats very clearly – he was miles ahead of the times in calling out the Soviets of WWII for being a huge threat to US democracy. Not taking Berlin was a significant error on the part of Roosevelt, who should have given Ike clear orders to take it, come what may. But he was dying at the time. German resistance against the US army was not extreme in 1945, so incurring millions of last minute casualties may not have been on the cards. The Soviets should have been pegged as far back from central Europe as was possible. As for keeping his mouth shut, well under the constitution he had a right to express himself and a vote in every election. But it was not a popular view at the time and no US soldier would have wanted to fight another war – pushing the Soviets back by force was a total non starter in 1945 as aside from mavericks like Patton, there was no political will for it.

Not sure the USAF in 1945 would have been much of a wild card. The soviet Airforce was huge. Long Range bombers were about the only thing they were behind in. I think they knew that strategic bombing was not going to keep them back, it takes too long to show effects, and the industry was too far back…and delivering a bomber carried a-bomb kind of iffy since unlike Japan and Germany, they had intact full strength air forces of their own to stop them (a bombs not really being in the thinking since the decision to try to stop the Soviets would have had to happen before they were tested and available or even known about)