Patton/ Montgomery discussion (3 Viewers)

[tdubel]

Here is my 2 cents:

1. Patton and Monty - were they egotistical, YES. SO what. War is war. I don't believe in rules per se in this case, this was not a gentleman's war. We were fighting supreme Evil, never forget that. The reason Patton is a hero to me is that he was IMO a true War General. He knew the endgame and he used all means to get there. Did he like the glory, sure, he was a career soldier. He believed his own kool aid and motivated the troops to do it. MacArthur was the same way. My Grandfather still alive is a WW2 veteran and I can tell you that not only my own reading formed these opinions, but the fact that my Grandfather is alive today and his opinions on the these guys definitely influences my opinion. Bottom line - War is War, there is no place for PC, etc.

2. Decisions are split second in times of war, to judge them 70 years later is tough at best.

We all have our opinions and all are objective, but subjectively, these guys are Heros in my book.

TD

 

[DMNamiot]

Here is my 2 cents:

1. Patton and Monty - were they egotistical, YES. SO what. War is war. I don't believe in rules per se in this case, this was not a gentleman's war. We were fighting supreme Evil, never forget that. The reason Patton is a hero to me is that he was IMO a true War General. He knew the endgame and he used all means to get there. Did he like the glory, sure, he was a career soldier. He believed his own kool aid and motivated the troops to do it. MacArthur was the same way. My Grandfather still alive is a WW2 veteran and I can tell you that not only my own reading formed these opinions, but the fact that my Grandfather is alive today and his opinions on the these guys definitely influences my opinion. Bottom line - War is War, there is no place for PC, etc.

2. Decisions are split second in times of war, to judge them 70 years later is tough at best.

We all have our opinions and all are objective, but subjectively, these guys are Heros in my book.

TD

Hi Tom,

Great Post!

Dave

 

[Mitch]

I wonder if you would have done that to rescue one of your family members??? If I was in that position I would have.
Mitch

I don't think there is any question that Monty had a greater concern for his men's welfare than Patton. In addition to ordering the 45th Division not to take prisoners during the Sicilian campaign (putting all Allied POW's at risk), he also sent an entire combat command of an Armored Division many miles behind enemy lines without permission from his superiors or any support, on a personal mission to rescue his son and law. Only a handful of men from the combat command (and not a single vehicle) made it back to Allied lines alive, and Patton's son in law remained a POW. I once spoke to a veteran of Patton's third army who told me, "Old Blood and Guts . . . yeah, our blood, his guts."

 

[Currahee Chris]

...We Americans often criticize Montgomery for the "need to overwhelm" the enemy, but Monty knew just how to use the material superiority to best advantage.

Interesting to note as essentially that is the current doctrine utilized by the US in every war we fought since WW2, especially since Nam.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I wonder if you would have done that to rescue one of your family members??? If I was in that position I would have.
Mitch

I would have gone myself to rescue one of my family members. I wouldn't have sat comfortably and safely behind the lines and ordered 750+ men off to their deaths on a mission with no realistic chance of survival to keep my daughter off my back. And I can't really believe you would have Mitch, you are a better man than that.

 

[tdubel]

I would have gone myself to rescue one of my family members. I wouldn't have sat comfortably and safely behind the lines and ordered 750+ men off to their deaths on a mission with no realistic chance of survival to keep my daughter off my back. And I can't really believe you would have Mitch, you are a better man than that.

Louis,
Not beating on you, but that is a very romantic viewpoint. Even if Patton wanted to go on his own, the upper echelon would have never allowed it and he would have been "hanged" if he had.

In the end and generally speaking, He and any other General had a job to do. Like it or not, he was given the directive to achieve the war objectives at all costs. WW2 was not the era of "surgical strikes", etc. While they tried to minimize loss of life as much as they could, in the end the War objectives won out every time and if they sacrificed lives for the "greater good" (the orders), they did. I know you dislike Patton, MacArthur and Monty, but they were part of the winning solution that won the War. I just think it is way too hard to judge the merits in this day and age. We live in the political correct surgical strike wars that started in Nam.

IN my opinion, this is why we get bogged down and lose wars in the press today. Again, just my opinion, if I was on the battlefield, I may have a different one. BUT, I will tell you, if they were ever crazy enough to give me a command, I am a big picture thinker and that thought is whereever I am fighting, I want to turn the enemy into a parking lot. I truly believe the only way to truly win a war is total domination. I am a end justifies the means kind of thinker.

TD

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

Thing is I would have and, many times in WWII men were sent behind the lines for rather strange reasons including either rescuing personal or important people or saving trapped troops. Every mission in WWII had the reality that men would be killed.

I really believe that your posts fail to address the whole picture socio economic and political conditions that prevailed in the time. You always and, this is not disrespectful on my part, post what I consider PC comments malfeasance, death penalty court marshal and, all the rest aimed at many generals and missions. You and others almost pick out a general etc from the bigger picture and forensically analyse their actions which, allows your opinion to be supported by alleged facts. Whilst this allows support for your position IMO it gives a rather uneven picture of the events.

TDUBEL hits the nail on the head really and what I have been saying ever since I was posting on the Haig thread where exactly the same was done there. To fully understand what went on and why we must look at the upbringing, socio economic position, political climate, and military training and, actions they saw before WWII to understand their reasoning in battle actions.

Without doing this one is allowed to arrive, based on 21st century thinking, especially, in relation to military doctrines of combat and combat casualties at a conclusion that fails to represent the issues correctly. I don't profess to think I could have done better in the climate these men fought but, then in terms of casualties I don't critique the mindset of those in both world wars who were prepared to die for their country or, in the UK, their king and country this is something that is seen as a rather ludicrous statement in modern times but, in the overall climate back then it was expected.

That’s why I cannot agree with some of your comments and, why I say that I would have done the same thing as Patton regardless of cost as, it was rather accepted back then that things like this would, could and did happen.

Emotive narrative has weakened many historians’ works on many subjects and, pivotal to that is an inability or an ignorance of the bigger picture.
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

One of the points mentioned by Louis is about "his daughter off his [Patton's] back." You cannot discount that. Wait until your daughter is grown and insistent about something and report back to us :smile2:

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis,
Not beating on you, but that is a very romantic viewpoint. Even if Patton wanted to go on his own, the upper echelon would have never allowed it and he would have been "hanged" if he had.

In the end and generally speaking, He and any other General had a job to do. Like it or not, he was given the directive to achieve the war objectives at all costs. WW2 was not the era of "surgical strikes", etc. While they tried to minimize loss of life as much as they could, in the end the War objectives won out every time and if they sacrificed lives for the "greater good" (the orders), they did. I know you dislike Patton, MacArthur and Monty, but they were part of the winning solution that won the War. I just think it is way too hard to judge the merits in this day and age. We live in the political correct surgical strike wars that started in Nam.

IN my opinion, this is why we get bogged down and lose wars in the press today. Again, just my opinion, if I was on the battlefield, I may have a different one. BUT, I will tell you, if they were ever crazy enough to give me a command, I am a big picture thinker and that thought is whereever I am fighting, I want to turn the enemy into a parking lot. I truly believe the only way to truly win a war is total domination. I am a end justifies the means kind of thinker.

TD

Tom,

He should have been hung for ordering that combat command off to their deaths. It's not at all romantic, he very nearly was court martialled for it. It was a completely illegal command. He sent the men miles outside of the area he was ordered to attack on a personal errand with no strategic or tactical value. Read up on it. Bradley had to again cover it up. There were calls for an investigation in Congress just before Patton's accidental death.

Of all of Patton's acts which by any fair reading of military law constituted war crimes, ordering off Combat Command B on an illegal personal mission was probably the worst (or maybe second to his directing the 45th Division not to take prisoners). I'll loan you a book on the subject, written from contemporary accounts of the few survivors, which might open your eyes as to Patton.

Frankly, if it wasn't for the movie "Patton" where George C. Scott romanticized Patton I don't think there would be such a knee jerk "he was a great general and hero" reaction to Patton. He repeatedly disobeyed orders, at a great cost in the lives on his men, who, for the most part hated him. And this is not "hind sight is 20-20" or revisionist history. All of this was well documented and recognized at the time. Patton was removed from command once (for the slapping incidents), and never permitted to command a theater again, because Ike and his staff recognized that Patton was a dangerous and insubordinate individual.

And that's not even taking into account some of the incredibly stupid things he said publically, like his statement that we should join with the Nazis and attack the Soviets.

He got some important results in the pursuit of glory, for which he is rightfully remembered, but the idiotic and criminal things he for the most part got away with because of Bradley covering up for him and Ike's forbearance, should also be remembered.

 

[trooper]

It is interesting to compare Patton with Custer.Their careers and personalities are very similar. Trooper

 

[tdubel]

Tom,

He should have been hung for ordering that combat command off to their deaths. It's not at all romantic, he very nearly was court martialled for it. It was a completely illegal command. He sent the men miles outside of the area he was ordered to attack on a personal errand with no strategic or tactical value. Read up on it. Bradley had to again cover it up. There were calls for an investigation in Congress just before Patton's accidental death.

Of all of Patton's acts which by any fair reading of military law constituted war crimes, ordering off Combat Command B on an illegal personal mission was probably the worst (or maybe second to his directing the 45th Division not to take prisoners). I'll loan you a book on the subject, written from contemporary accounts of the few survivors, which might open your eyes as to Patton.

Frankly, if it wasn't for the movie "Patton" where George C. Scott romanticized Patton I don't think there would be such a knee jerk "he was a great general and hero" reaction to Patton. He repeatedly disobeyed orders, at a great cost in the lives on his men, who, for the most part hated him. And this is not "hind sight is 20-20" or revisionist history. All of this was well documented and recognized at the time. Patton was removed from command once (for the slapping incidents), and never permitted to command a theater again, because Ike and his staff recognized that Patton was a dangerous and insubordinate individual.

And that's not even taking into account some of the incredibly stupid things he said publically, like his statement that we should join with the Nazis and attack the Soviets.

He got some important results in the pursuit of glory, for which he is rightfully remembered, but the idiotic and criminal things he for the most part got away with because of Bradley covering up for him and Ike's forbearance, should also be remembered.

Louis, I don't dispute your opinion based on the above, but some points about Patton that are undisputed. IKE would not replace him because he literally struck fear in the Germans. There is a quote from Runstedt to that effect at the end of the war during an Allied Interview. Keitel, Jodl, etc. they all felt the same way. Additionally, Patton's battlefield achievements are what they are, Ike wouldn't get rid of him, he captured more axis acreage than any other General. He had his faults, but he was necessary and greatly advanced the War effort. Again, what is written/thought of today no matter by who is always through the looking glass, right or wrong and I make no judgement on that.

I simply have my opinion that he was a War hero and necessary for the War effort. I have formed that from military facts and I am sure influenced by my Granddad too. I admit that my opinion is subjective. Regarding his rescue mission or his interpretation of orders, I think he got it right most of the time, were some of those incidents wrong, probably, but that is war. It is a ongoing split second decisions, impulses, etc and no one gets it right all of the time. Also, family is family and I am sure it influenced his decision. He himself admitted it was poorly planned and if he had it to do over again, he would have sent triple the force!

As always, we remain friends on this subject and we just have differing opinions!

TD

TD

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis, I don't dispute your opinion based on the above, but some points about Patton that are undisputed. IKE would not replace him because he literally struck fear in the Germans. There is a quote from Runstedt to that effect at the end of the war during an Allied Interview. Keitel, Jodl, etc. they all felt the same way. Additionally, Patton's battlefield achievements are what they are, Ike wouldn't get rid of him, he captured more axis acreage than any other General. He had his faults, but he was necessary and greatly advanced the War effort. Again, what is written/thought of today no matter by who is always through the looking glass, right or wrong and I make no judgement on that.

I simply have my opinion that he was a War hero and necessary for the War effort. I have formed that from military facts and I am sure influenced by my Granddad too. I admit that my opinion is subjective. Regarding his rescue mission or his interpretation of orders, I think he got it right most of the time, were some of those incidents wrong, probably, but that is war. It is a ongoing split second decisions, impulses, etc and no one gets it right all of the time. Also, family is family and I am sure it influenced his decision. He himself admitted it was poorly planned and if he had it to do over again, he would have sent triple the force!

As always, we remain friends on this subject and we just have differing opinions!

TD

TD

Of course we remain friends, Tom.:smile2: And I respect your opinion too. As I said, Patton's accomplishments on the battlefield should be remembered, as should Monty's. They both had great momments. But, I also think all of their mistakes and failures should also be remembered, if for nothing else than balance.

Once all of the facts, good and bad, have been discussed, each person is entitled to their own opinion. Frankly, I can take the facts I am aware of, and make a compelling argument that both Patton and Monty were great generals. I don't happen to believe that, but, as an appellate attorney, I can play devils advocate with the best of them.{eek3}

But the discusion is the fun part. You always learn something new.:wink2:

 

[panda1gen]

Louis...

Thing is I would have and, many times in WWII men were sent behind the lines for rather strange reasons including either rescuing personal or important people or saving trapped troops. Every mission in WWII had the reality that men would be killed.

I really believe that your posts fail to address the whole picture socio economic and political conditions that prevailed in the time. You always and, this is not disrespectful on my part, post what I consider PC comments malfeasance, death penalty court marshal and, all the rest aimed at many generals and missions. You and others almost pick out a general etc from the bigger picture and forensically analyse their actions which, allows your opinion to be supported by alleged facts. Whilst this allows support for your position IMO it gives a rather uneven picture of the events.

TDUBEL hits the nail on the head really and what I have been saying ever since I was posting on the Haig thread where exactly the same was done there. To fully understand what went on and why we must look at the upbringing, socio economic position, political climate, and military training and, actions they saw before WWII to understand their reasoning in battle actions.

Without doing this one is allowed to arrive, based on 21st century thinking, especially, in relation to military doctrines of combat and combat casualties at a conclusion that fails to represent the issues correctly. I don't profess to think I could have done better in the climate these men fought but, then in terms of casualties I don't critique the mindset of those in both world wars who were prepared to die for their country or, in the UK, their king and country this is something that is seen as a rather ludicrous statement in modern times but, in the overall climate back then it was expected.

That’s why I cannot agree with some of your comments and, why I say that I would have done the same thing as Patton regardless of cost as, it was rather accepted back then that things like this would, could and did happen.

Emotive narrative has weakened many historians’ works on many subjects and, pivotal to that is an inability or an ignorance of the bigger picture.
Mitch

With respect Mitch, I think you miss the point. I don't believe for one second Louis is being emotive, it is a question of balance in the most unforgiving of envirnoments where a bad call means someone is dead, it is the balance he highlights, not just taking the PR machine at face value.

I don't believe Bradley, Ike, Hodges, Monty, Wavell, Slim, O'Connor etc etc etc as good generals would ever have done this, but they all made (and except for Monty) admitted their mistakes.

If vanity overcomes military judgement, a position of responsibility is abused and you lose your son or relative due to him being given such (potentially illegal) orders, where would you stand then? Oh, it is OK because Patton is a great guy? Really?

 

[panda1gen]

Of course we remain friends, Tom.:smile2: And I respect your opinion too. As I said, Patton's accomplishments on the battlefield should be remembered, as should Monty's. They both had great momments. But, I also think all of their mistakes and failures should also be remembered, if for nothing else than balance.

Once all of the facts, good and bad, have been discussed, each person is entitled to their own opinion. Frankly, I can take the facts I am aware of, and make a compelling argument that both Patton and Monty were great generals. I don't happen to believe that, but, as an appellate attorney, I can play devils advocate with the best of them.{eek3}

But the discusion is the fun part. You always learn something new.:wink2:

But the discusion is the fun part. You always learn something new.:wink2:[/QUOTE]

No you don't:tongue:

 

[panda1gen]

Louis, I don't dispute your opinion based on the above, but some points about Patton that are undisputed. IKE would not replace him because he literally struck fear in the Germans. There is a quote from Runstedt to that effect at the end of the war during an Allied Interview. Keitel, Jodl, etc. they all felt the same way. Additionally, Patton's battlefield achievements are what they are, Ike wouldn't get rid of him, he captured more axis acreage than any other General. He had his faults, but he was necessary and greatly advanced the War effort. Again, what is written/thought of today no matter by who is always through the looking glass, right or wrong and I make no judgement on that.

I simply have my opinion that he was a War hero and necessary for the War effort. I have formed that from military facts and I am sure influenced by my Granddad too. I admit that my opinion is subjective. Regarding his rescue mission or his interpretation of orders, I think he got it right most of the time, were some of those incidents wrong, probably, but that is war. It is a ongoing split second decisions, impulses, etc and no one gets it right all of the time. Also, family is family and I am sure it influenced his decision. He himself admitted it was poorly planned and if he had it to do over again, he would have sent triple the force!

As always, we remain friends on this subject and we just have differing opinions!

TD

TD

Some good points in there Tom. I would ask you the same as Mitch though, what if it was your son killed on such a mission?

 

[Wraith]

No you don't:tongue:

Ah, good to see the concentration levels are improving :tongue:

 

[panda1gen]

Ah, good to see the concentration levels are improving :tongue:

I have myyyy momints:tongue::tongue::tongue::wink2:

 

[Mitch]

panda1gen....

Of course my sympathies go to those who lost sons brothers and husbands in WWII but, again, there was a different mindset then about dying for your country and doing what was asked in defeating the nazi's and the japanese.

How many missions not for rescuing a family member were rather pointless I can think of many where there were no need to send in troops to achieve this or that. Why send troops in to take an objective where you could easily have bypassed it and, starved in terms of food and armaments????

I won't look back and criticise commanders and troops from the comfort of my home, whilst not addressing all the circumstances surrounding why they did what they did in a proper historical context for 1939-45 not with 2011 thinking.

I said at the start of this thread that both commanders did things wrong and did good things but, we do not have a major war to deal with and all the demands that brings which, none of us understand or seem willing to do. It just seems good to scream crime when we have no idea about the problems of dealing with armies in the greates war man has seen or understanding what made the men of that generation do as they did
Mitch

 

[Arnhemjim]

I'm more of a "traditionalist" in my display of toy soldiers, but in light of this topic I could not help but reflect on the poignant reflections which might be invoked by the following vignette, composed of three pieces out of the K&C D-Day Series.

​

​

​

 

[jazzeum]

Some good points in there Tom. I would ask you the same as Mitch though, what if it was your son killed on such a mission?

How many missions are people sent on that are foolhardy (and have nothing to do with rescuing a family member)? I think the list would be endless.