"The Foresight of Patton" Topic

"A man who could see Stalin's real agenda long before the rest of the world caught on.

Nearly 70 years after the untimely death of U.S. General George S. Patton, suspicions linger as to the nature and circumstances surrounding the demise of this formidable military genius. On a war-torn, two-lane highway in Mannheim, Germany, Patton's car was struck on December 21, 1945 by a two-ton Army truck less than six months after the end of WWII hostilities in Europe. The accident left Patton clinging to life in a Heidelberg hospital during a crucial period when the Allies were attempting to transition from the ravages of war to a sustained peace in Germany. Within three weeks, Patton would lose his final battle, and the fate of post-war Germany would be sealed for several decades.

At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

From my read of the article it seems to ignore the war in the Pacific and the manpower that would be needed for the bloodbath that would be the invasion of the Japanese home islands. The US was stretched badly at this point and even the Ardennes offensive upset the time table to shift units from Europe to the Pacific with a trip through the US for leave and refit as planners had anticipated the war being over in Europe ending in early 1945.

"military genius" – Patton???

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

Patton was an able army-level commander, but I've never seen anything to suggest he had any particular genius at levels above that. Grand strategy was not his forte and I doubt there was anything he could have done to alter the Cold War situation that appeared in Europe after WWII.

"Grand strategy was not his forte …"

Patton was never afforded the opportunity to operate in that realm. Given that no evidence of aptitude or lack thereof exists, how can such a conclusion be reached?

B

Well this topic like ones about Rommel, Monty, Mac, etc., has many opinions. Some biased … some not …

But generally all of them and others had both victories and losses. Made good decisions … and bad decisions.

Having not being there in WWII and the highest level of command I had was a Mech Co Cdr. I tend to keep an open mind, as again I was not there and as always hindsight is 20/20 …

In statistical analysis, and rightfully in almost any sort of analysis, we should be aware of the concept of "confirmation bias".

Patton said something that in time was demonstrated to be true. Therefore he's a genius.

Except that Patton also said about 1,000 things that were ridiculous non-sense. But we aren't examining those as well. Only the one thing that turned out to come true.

Even a stopped clock can be shown to be right twice a day. That does not mean it is a reliable way to tell the time.

Let us recall the man we are discussing. This was not a "citizen soldier", willing to do the dirty job his country called him to do, so that he could return to his peaceful life when it was all over.

This was instead a man who thought of himself as a re-incarnation of great generals of the past. A man who existed for nothing but war.

On multiple occasions, both in his professional discussions and in his personal letters, Patton expressed his view that he was a warrior, that WW2 was his one great opportunity, and that after the war he would be nothing. And he expressed his frustration that the war was likely to end before he had earned his place in history.

With that as background, is it any wonder that he would see, or even seek, paths for continuing the war?

I see nothing that shows any indication of genius in his pronouncements about future conflict with the Russians. Rather I see only obsession.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Well said Mark 1…

Amicalement
Armand

In 1932 Patton, when he was a Major, led a cavalry charge against the "Bonus Army" of WWI vets in DC.

Here are some other "unconfirmed" quotes from Patton:
link

I seem to recall a conversation Patton had with a front line commander how many of his officers are getting killed. The reason is that if the enlisted men see officers getting killed too they are more willing to follow them. If enough were not getting killed he told the commander to send more of them in front to be killed. Any other details about this?

Wolfhag

"George, we have a real problem with II Corps on the Tunisian front. We need you to take it over and sort things out as soon as possible."

"George, great job with II Corps. We will be invading Sicily quite soon and want you to take command of 7th Corps.

"George, great job in Sicily … except for that slapping incident which created really ugly optics in the media. We are putting you in charge of a big dis-information program connected with the upcoming invasion of Europe. Your job will be to convince the Germans that a complete fictitious army is in fact the real thing."

"George, great job with Operation Fortitude; it looks like the Germans bought the ruse lock, stock and barrel. We are now putting you in command of 3rd Army as the principal exploitation force to overrun France after we break out of Normandy."

"George, great job overrunning France all the way to Metz and the German border. Sorry about cutting off your supplies at an inopportune moment, but we are going to give Monty's idea a try."

"George, great job getting 3rd Army turned around and relieving Bastogne so quickly. A lot of people didn't think you could do it."

"George, congratulations on forcing your own way across the Rhine River with so little in the way of support."

- – -

"… 1,000 things that were ridiculous non-sense."

One wonders how such a buffoon reached such senior command rank and responsibility in so short a time. What could General Marshall and the Joint Chiefs have possibly been thinking? Let's be honest, Patton was promoted and assigned by senior US Army people who had likely known him and worked with him for at least thirty years. If Patton was as "offbeat" or "unstable" as suggested, does anyone REALLY believe he ever would have progressed so far so fast when real war broke out? Scores of other senior officers in the US Army were intentionally shunted aside and not permitted to get anywhere near the real shooting.

- – -

Compare Patton to MacArthur.

Compare Patton to the kook known for this famous quotation -
""I am a true Roman Emperor; I am of the best race of the Caesars – those who are founders."

B

I never heard of that conversation Wolf ? But is does not sound like something any Gen. I could think of would say ?

Good points Blutarski …

I have noticed especially in recent events here in the US. If you don't like someone no matter how many good things he/she does. It still results in nothing but negative comments towards that individual.

"… 1,000 things that were ridiculous non-sense."

One wonders how such a buffoon reached such senior command rank and responsibility in so short a time.

I don't think I said anything to disparage his bona fides as a combat commander.

But if you are seeking to paint Patton as a genius for his prescience, for his ability to understand and provide predictions of the great flows of events beyond the battlefield, perhaps you should be looking at more than his combat record.

And, by the way, in considering his rise "in so short a time", he did not just suddenly appear on the scene in 1943. You perhaps forgot to mention that prior to being called in to fix II Corps in Tunisia he had commanded the land forces in Morocco during Operation Torch. So we might suggest he was the obvious choice when it became clear Frendenall was not up to the task.

But that too was not the start of his career. He was in fact an instructor at the US Army School of Cavalry, at Ft. Benning, BEFORE WW1. (He actually taught swordsmanship, which explains why the M1913 Cavalry Saber was of Patton's design.) He was already more than 30 years old when he served on the staff of Gen. John Pershing for the punitive expedition into Mexico in 1916.

To me, saying a Patton "reached such senior command rank and responsibility in so short a time" during WW2, when before the US entry into WW1 he had already served on the staff of the general who commanded the US Expeditionary Force in WW1 -- seems to sell short a loooonnng and distinguished Army career.

But as to his non-sense, maybe you don't like it being brought out, but he was VERY prolific in his nonsensical pronouncements.

As in how he had slayed Parthians with his Gladius before being felled by multiple arrows to his neck (reportedly said while wandering through some ancient ruins in Tunisia). Or when he wrote about being a Hoplite fighting the Persians under Darius, and how he participated in the siege of Tyre (while he was in command of the 3rd Army). Or how when he arrived in Langres, France, he recalled having been stationed there before when he served in Caesar's X Legion … a recollection that followed on similar comments during the First World War when he described having been in several French towns before, during the Hundred Years War, when as a French knight he had campaigned up until the battle of Crecy in 1346, where he was impaled by an English knight's lance -- a set of "memories" followed by his appearance in France again at Agincourt a century later, only this time on the other side as a part of the English army.

After the end of the Tunisian campaign, British General Sir Harold Alexander, reflecting on Patton's successes and martial spirit, declared that if Patton had been alive during the early 1800s Napoleon would have been made a Marshall. Patton was recorded as replying "But I did".

Need I go on?

None of this suggests that Patton was not an effective combat commander. Only that he had in his own mind but a single image of himself -- as a warrior. An eternal warrior. A warrior re-incarnated again and again, wherever and whenever war dominated history. He existed for war. Nothing short of war, nothing other than war.

With this perspective, is it any wonder that he predicted continuing war after Germany surrendered? Regardless of the political circumstances, would you have expected anything less?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

‘George – well done for keeping second corp pointing in the right direction whilst the heavily outnumbered Germans were ground down by overwhelming force. You did so impressively under other people's direction we are giving you a sideways move to command 7th corp.'

‘George, because you proved by your egoism in the ‘race for Messina' that you can't be trusted to sit at the big boys table for the invasion of France we are giving you a made up job commanding pretend troops so other more trusted people can get on and plan and deliver Overlord.'

‘George, because you have really good PR we are giving you command of third army. Don't worry though, the serious fighting is done and all you have to do is advanced against all opposition, m'kay?'

‘George, when you had to actually face proper German resistance at Metz and had to come up with your own plan of attack you chose to launch headlong attacks against fortified troops that took a couple of months and heavy casualties to produce meagre results. Wouldn't some other plan using manoeuvre and concentrating on a weak point have been a better option?

‘George, can you pass our compliments onto your staff for planning a change of direction of march and implementing it quickly. OK yes it is their job but they did it very well'.

‘George, well done for crossing the Rhine, it is another all time classic example of advancing against all opposition, which is a military operation you seem to excel at.'

What was it that Patton achieved that marks him out as better than a competent commander?

"George, great job overrunning France all the way to Metz and the German border. Sorry about cutting off your supplies at an inopportune moment, but we are going to give Monty's idea a try."

Bradley broke the German line and 3rd Army pushed through the gap. They fell into open space and when the Germans turned and stood their ground they stopped Patton dead.
''Monty' did not take anyone's supplies and the US shortages were made much much worse by the failure of their own quartermaster.
Bradley refused to let Patton try and close the Falaise Gap because he thought the Germans would simply flatten 3rd Army as it made its escape. Patton's own superior made that call.

Hi Durrati -

I understand that it is fashionable sport to critique every sort of historical military personality from the comfort of our armchairs. There is always a plentitude of personal quirks and personality failings that can be pointed out with glee.

But, at the end of the day, what really counts is the individual as seen by his contemporary superiors. In Patton's case, his career in WW2 is matched by precious few others.

Just lazily skimming the highlights from Wikipaedia -

> Majot Patton was an early thinker in the development of US armored mechanization starting as early as the 20's.
> Promoted to Lt Colonel in the Regular Army in 1934.
> Promoted to Colonel in 1938; comes to the notice of Army Chief of Staff, who is so impressed with Patton that he places him on the fast-track promotion list to General.
> In 1940 Patton and Chaffee establish the doctrinal groundwork for the US Armored Force.
> Patton is promoted to Brigadier General in October 1940.
> With the step-down of Chaffee, Patton becomes the premier authority on armored force doctrine within the US Army.
> Patton is promoted to Major General in April 1941.
> Patton repeatedly excels in several operational exercises and wargames through 1941 and early 1942.
> Patton selected by Eisenhower to help plan the invasion of French North Africa.
> Patton commands the Western Task Force, landing at Casablanca on 8 November 1942, capturing it by 11 November and successfully negotiating an armistice with General Charles Nogues, commander of the French defense.
> In March 1943, Patton is promoted to Lt General and selected by Eisenhower to replace Major General Fredenhall as commander of US II Corps after its humiliating defeat at Kasserine; his order are to revitalize the demoralized II Corps into an effective fighting force within 10 days.
> On 17 March, US 1st Infantry Division defeats a combined German-Italian force at El Guettar and pushes them back.
> Patton returns to 1st Armored Corps to assist in the planning of Operation Husky – the Allied invasion of Sicily.
> Patton lands on Sicily, now in command of 7th US Army.
> After Montgomery's advance upon Messina stalls, Patton is authorized by General Alexander to seize Palermo; his 3rd Infantry division advances 160km in three days and seizes Palermo on 21 July.
> Rather than sit idle in Palermo, Patton presses toward Messina from the west, capturing it on 16 August after heavy fighting en route.

I'm tired. You can go to Wiki and read the rest. If you still think Patton was just another "competent commander", well, good luck to you. I disagree.

- – -

"‘George, well done for crossing the Rhine, it is another all time classic example of advancing against Bleeped text all opposition, which is a military operation you seem to excel at.'"

LOL. The lack of opposition in Patton's crossing of the Rhine was because 3rd Army, after crossing the Saar River, had already destroyed both the German 1st and 7th Armies facing it on that front.

B

"Bradley refused to let Patton try and close the Falaise Gap because he thought the Germans would simply flatten 3rd Army as it made its escape. Patton's own superior made that call."

- – -

Bradley had no courage and was congenitally risk-averse. His faint-heartedness first manifested itself in his countermanding pre-existing orders related to a situation with which he was not familiar, resulting in the failure of the plan to seize Lorient.

The notion of the wreckage of the German forces fleeing the Falaise Pocket having any ability to "flatten" 3rd Army is completely laughable. Was Eisenhower planning to stand down the rest of the Allied Army?

B

The notion of the wreckage of the German forces fleeing the Falaise Pocket having any ability to "flatten" 3rd Army is completely laughable.

German Units were attacking back into the pocket to help the escape of the trapped and the retreating troops were combat elements because the administrative sections had been taken out earlier. It was not a mob. What is truly laughable is your inability to accept reality. Patton was denied his chance because he was not considered capable of blocking a retreating German Army by those who knew his limits.
If you want confirmation of Patton's inability to cut off and surround a 'beaten' retreating German Army see The Bulge where the Germans escaped and no one could find a way to blame Monty!

I was interested by the fact that after WWI Patton and his friend Dwight Eisenhower were both advocated of armored forces. Patton had commanded a tank battalion in France and Eisenhower had commanded the training center for tank crews in Gettysburg, PA. Both were vocal supporters of a US Tank Corps. But when their superiors took them aside and said: "Hey, boys, the army is NOT going to pursue this crazy tank thing and if you value your careers, you'll keep your mouths shut about it." Both of them saluted and dropped the idea for nearly 20 years. :)

Blutarski

Was not aware that I was gleefully pointing out personal quirks – I don't think I mentioned any. I just put a differing view of Patton's career to you in the same style.

My question however was a serious one – what did Patton achieved that was so impressive? Looking at your lazy list I am still not impressed. Half of it is evidence of being an able peacetime officer. The rest, commanding 2nd corp as part of the allied victory in Tunisia – ok yes but are you claiming Patton's performance was outstanding or worthy of particular note? Why? Can't see it myself. In Sicily, yeah he did ok. But to be frank, in Sicily the Germans got away, when they should not have done. No one in the allied command can claim plaudits for that one.

Is there even one example of battlefield performance that can be claim to be genius / inspired / achieving far more than another general could have or would have? I am happy to learn about it here.

But, at the end of the day, what really counts is the individual as seen by his contemporary superiors.

I would agree with you here. And how was he seen? Let's not look at what they said but what they did. Overlord was probably the most important allied operation of the war as well as the most complex. What role was he given in planning and commanding this operation? He was allowed nowhere near it. Was given a job commanding a pretend army and was not involved at all with the proper military operation. What does this tell us about how he was seen by his contemporary superiors?

Wouldn't the Germans have known first hand how poorly Patton performed on the battlefield? What was their opinion? If Patton was a poor commander why were the Germans deceived about D-Day when they knew he was the commander?

What role did the Navy play in the Germans escaping from Sicily?

Couldn't the deception operation of Patton's "Ghost Army" be comparable to pinning down the divisions that were withheld in the opening week of Normandy? Why were the Germans fooled? Pinning down that many units without barely firing a shot is a monumental achievement even if Patton had nothing to do with it.

"Proper military operation": I'd say that any deception operation that is successful and results in almost no causalities is pretty damn proper.

But, at the end of the day, what really counts is the individual as seen by his contemporary superiors.

I'd have to agree with that but what if his superiors are a bunch of "perfumed princes"? If he was better than them wouldn't they have considered him threat to their career and acted accordingly against him?

Then there is the issue of how he met his fate. If it was not an accident then who was it that he threatened and why?

Wolfhag

I'd always imagined that Patton's foresight(s) were on the barrels of his pistols.

I have a tendency to think based on everything Pattongenerally was an effective combat commander. With some failings … of course … But again I was only a CPT …

If Patton was a poor commander why were the Germans deceived about D-Day when they knew he was the commander?

What role did the Navy play in the Germans escaping from Sicily?

Couldn't the deception operation of Patton's "Ghost Army" be comparable to pinning down the divisions that were withheld in the opening week of Normandy? Why were the Germans fooled? Pinning down that many units without barely firing a shot is a monumental achievement even if Patton had nothing to do with it.

Patton did not have anything to do with it. It was not his plan and he did no more than he was told. The German were fearful another Army was going to invade and not that Patton was going to invade.
The myth that the Germans 'feared' Patton was addressed by Yeid:

link

The same applies to Patton's role as commander of the fictional U.S. 1st Army Group in Kent, designed to create the impression that the invasion would occur at Calais rather than Normandy. In Yeide's view, Farago's assertion that the Germans concentrated on Patton as the general likely to command American forces in the invasion of France is mainly based on a misinterpretation of an entry in the German High Command's war diary and on a routine Air War Academy paper entitled Invasionsgenerale. In fact, says Yeide, in a copy distributed in February 1944 Patton is "the only senior Allied general in Britain and the Mediterranean notprofiled with a brief, one paragraph summary." Bradley appears and so does Montgomery, but no Patton. Yeide does not rule out his inclusion from a later version now missing, but anyway, such papers were standard products with the all services, from which nothing much can be inferred.
What is significant, however, he notes, is that the German High Command did not identify Patton as the commander of this fake U.S. 1st Army Group until well after they had fallen for the Calais ploy. So Patton's presence in Kent was not the decisive factor in the German miscalculation.
"The Germans did not track Patton's movements as the key to allied intentions. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists." Hence their intelligence efforts were much more focused on people like Montgomery and Eisenhower, because this was the level on which strategic decisions were made.