Misconceptions about George Patton, Jr.

[wildWolverine]

I am currently reading an excellent biography of George Patton: Patton, A Genius for War by Carlo D'Este. While I realize that this is only one source (the first book that I have read that is entirely devoted to Patton), D'Este challenges many of the commonly held conceptions dealing with Patton. I am curious: how many people get the majority of their "Patton knowledge" from the movie (George C. Scott)? One of the aspects that intrigues me most is Patton's relations with several of the other Allied commanders, most notably Bradley and Montgomery. Per D'Este, Monty came to greatly respect Patton during the Sicily campaign, and the two came to a general understanding (despite Patton's apparent mis-beliefs that Monty was trying to hold him back). In short, the movie vastly over-played the competition between the two men.

Another fact in the book also suprised me. Bradley has long been known as the "soldier's general." However, if D'Este's facts are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them), Bradley sacked far more officers than Patton ever did. Bradley was likely to relieve a commander after his first failure, while Patton was loth to remove any commander while in combat.

However, several different passages have led me to believe that D'Este may be slightly biased against Bradley and Eisenhower, painting a picture that may not be entirely accurate.

I guess the purpose of this thread is to see what you all think about the dispositions, etc. of the Allied commanders during WW2.

"We're going to hold on to him by the nose and kick him in the ass!... We have one motto, 'L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!'"

 

[Case]

Originally posted by wildWolverine
In short, the movie vastly over-played the competition between the two men.

Yep. The movie was more a hagiography of Patton then a serious historical piece. All of Patton's flaws which couldn't be explained as forming part of a 'heroic warrior' image were ignored (for instance, his poor performance during the fighting in Eastern France and the Siegfried Line).

Historically, after Scily Patton and Montgomery didn't have a lot to do with each other. From his arrival in Europe Patton answered to Bradley, and his Army was typically hundreds of kilometres away from the 21st Army Group, and used American supply lines which were normally totally independant from British supply lines. Furthermore, Patton had only a limited voice and role in the high-level decisions on the development of the Allies grand-strategy. It should be noted that D'Este is no great fan of Montgomery - his classic Decision in Normandy was fairly critical of Montgomery's generalship.

Another fact in the book also suprised me. Bradley has long been known as the "soldier's general." However, if D'Este's facts are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them), Bradley sacked far more officers than Patton ever did. Bradley was likely to relieve a commander after his first failure, while Patton was loth to remove any commander while in combat.

I think that most soldiers were more then happy to see officers swiftly punished for their failures Bear in mind that as an Army Group Commander, Bradley was responsible for overseeing about four times as many officers as Patton was as an Army commander.

 

[pomsa]

Bradley always was much more discreet about dissmissing officers.

However, Patton always made a big commotion, and cussed out wounded soldiers. Most people I know don't like being cussed out.

 

[Sarevok]

thats a good biography

 

[wildWolverine]

Why do you say that pomsa? I believe that Patton was very sensitive and compassionate when dealing with wounded soldiers. True, he did not believe in the psychological impact war can have (i.e., he did not believe in the existance of shell shock), but when he witnessed physically wounded soldiers, Patton became emotional and was most often very kind. This is kind of what I'm talking about. Patton has this image (partly self cultivated) that really isn't who he actually was.

I agree Sarevok. It is very well written and D'Este, for the most part, defends his opinions. From this book alone, I do not believe that D'Este is prejudiced against Montgomery. In fact, at several points throughout the book, D'Este has pointed out that while not perfect, Montgomery was one of the relatively few truly capable top level Allied commanders.

 

[Serutan]

Originally posted by wildWolverine


Another fact in the book also suprised me. Bradley has long been known as the "soldier's general." However, if D'Este's facts are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them), Bradley sacked far more officers than Patton ever did. Bradley was likely to relieve a commander after his first failure, while Patton was loth to remove any commander while in combat.

I always thought when Bradley was called a "soldier's general",
it was with respect to enlisted men. As Case pointed out, if Bradley
was quick to get rid of a bad officer, it would go over well with
the enlisted men.

Interestingly, I saw somewhere (&#!%@#, can't remember where),
that Zhukov, while being hell on officers, was also respected and
liked by the enlisted men.

 

[wildWolverine]

I concur with your interpretation of the moniker 'soldier's general.' I'm not sure removing a commander after his first mistake is always best for the soldiers. No one is perfect -- and a good commander will learn from his mistake and not repeat it again. If a division has four different commanders in as many months, the regular GI's are likely to suffer the consequences.

Another point is Bradley had almost no direct contact with the men in his command; he was a more remote commander. Patton was more involved, constantly touring the fronts, giving speeches to and exhorting his men, from corps commanders down to privates. Most of the men in the Third Army respected Patton and were willing to do anything he ordered. The men of the First Army had no such love for Bradley.

That is an interesting fact about Zhukov. I am not very familiar with the inner workings of the Red Army.