Patton/ Montgomery discussion (1 Viewer)

[Louis Badolato]

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.

Anytime someone is sent on a foolhardy mission and killed it is tragic, but that it not my point.

If a general is given a mission like take a particular town, or advance along a particular road, the order he gives to achieve his mission may well be foolhardy, but at least it is intended to achieve a goal for purposes of winning the conflict.

Patton was given a specific mission, a sector in which he was ordered by Bradley to advance. Patton sent his men in a completely different direction, into a sector where they were not supposed to be (and were thus at risk not only of the enemy, but of friendly fire from the troops who were supposed to be in the sector), for the sole purpose of bringing back his son in law (not a legitimate goal intended to advance the war effort or win the war). He sent a combat command, without giving notice to his superiors (who would have immediately cancelled the mission), and accordingly without artillery support or air support. Without artillery and air support, that combat command had a best a 1 in 100 chance of making it back successfully. It was, quite simply, a mission a combat command was not equipped to successfully carry out. Patton knew this, but the men he was sending to die apparently didn't matter in Patton's view as much as bringing back his son in law, who had been safe in a POW camp since 1943, when he was captured in his first and only combat in North Africa. About 500 wives and mothers never saw their sons or husbands again as a result.

If you want to tell me that this is OK, because back then people thought differently about giving their lives for their country, I am going to ask you what if you were one of these parents or spouses? What if they told you your son or husband died, not to win the war, but because Patton (or his daughter) missed his son in law? I can tell you in no uncertain terms that if it had been my Alec who died for Patton's personal mission, I would have been the person driving the vehicle that ended Patton's miserable life.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

The raid to rescue Patton's son in law took place in Hammelburg located in Bavaria. I agree that to sacrifice 500 men in the hopes of saving one man is by no means justified. It was simply self serving, selfish, and wrong. {sm2}

 

[DMNamiot]

Louis, Perhaps we should all agree that we disagree on Patton and Montgomery etc. The ire you show for his decision to do what he did in regards to the POW camp mission is well known throughout the forum so for the sake of this discussion lets put that behind us. However, we do need to get the facts correct on the number of killed, wounded, and captured from TF Baum. Task Force Baum was manned by roughly 300 men, by todays standards it was about the strength of a half battalion, 32 were killed in action during the raid and only 35 made it back to Allied-controlled territory, with the remainder being taken prisoner. All of the 57 tanks, jeeps, and other vehicles were lost. Also the wounded were all retaken a few weeks later by the 14th Armored Division when it recaptured the camp, among them Baum and Walters. You state a number of 500 wives and mothers where did you come up with this number? Regardless of where you got the numbers the fact remains that the mission failed and there was a reprimand made by Ike to Patton. Which in the Military world is a form of nonjudical punishment. Happened a lot to Generals in those days, and still does. (McChrystal ring a bell).

Dave

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis, Perhaps we should all agree that we disagree on Patton and Montgomery etc. The ire you show for his decision to do what he did in regards to the POW camp mission is well known throughout the forum so for the sake of this discussion lets put that behind us. However, we do need to get the facts correct on the number of killed, wounded, and captured from TF Baum. Task Force Baum was manned by roughly 300 men, by todays standards it was about the strength of a half battalion, 32 were killed in action during the raid and only 35 made it back to Allied-controlled territory, with the remainder being taken prisoner. All of the 57 tanks, jeeps, and other vehicles were lost. Also the wounded were all retaken a few weeks later by the 14th Armored Division when it recaptured the camp, among them Baum and Walters. You state a number of 500 wives and mothers where did you come up with this number? Regardless of where you got the numbers the fact remains that the mission failed and there was a reprimand made by Ike to Patton. Which in the Military world is a form of nonjudical punishment. Happened a lot to Generals in those days, and still does. (McChrystal ring a bell).

Dave

Sorry Dave, I got my numbers wrong. I read that the entire combat command was lost except for 6 men who made it back. I assumed that meant killed. I am happy to hear that most of them were captured. That being said, this doesn't make the order to launch this raid for the benefit of his son and law any less illegal, or the risk to the men he sent any less real. Again, I ask the question if you were the father of one of the men who were lost when Patton chose to treat a combat command like his personal mideavel vassels, would you have felt your son's death was justified or would you have wanted Patton court martialled?

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

You want sanitised combat and condem any commander that acted differently or undertook actions against your rather unique historical narrative. You have used non fiction works to condem Monty previously and, now you post and choose to ignore the fact that different historical conditions are unimportant to what went on and, our understanding of why

But, then you scream for capital punishments to suit your rather medieval approach to punishment for actions you see as criminal from your modern stance and, now you wish to have been the driver of Pattons car when he suffered the severe injuries that ended his life!!!!

I would have been proud that my son fought against the nazi's and played a part in their downfall but, I would suggest that you look at some of the history of missions which were rather wasteful that were not ordered from generals but, lower ranks which could be classed as wasteful but, nontheless went ahead. By not addressing the bigger picture, as I have mentioned, we drag Patton out of context and, allow the forensic dismemberment that supports a required solution to what point one wants to make

Would you have felt the same had it not been one of his loose family members and say, a trapped trooper?? I bet not and, venture it would be a praise worthy event even if that would have irked you. What you are doing is exactly what you condone you are deciding with impunity what is right and what is wrong exactly, what the generals of the time did and forgetting their enourmous power and remit they had to do as they saw fit.

I still do not believe that anyone in that position in those circumstances would not have used their assets in that manner, They may say so as it looks good but, its farcical IMO to say I would have gone on my own.
Mitch

 

[The Military Workshop]

A question about the rescue mission to get Patton's son.

Was the mission just to rescue him or were they going to bring out any others that were with him and if so how many ?

Regards
Brett

 

[Mitch]

Brett...

Louis initial post makes it seem a gung ho attempt was made to rescue the Lt Col after he was shot and left behind but, I think the attempt would have brought 900 prisoners of war back to allied lines.

I stand to be corrected on the number but, from memory its a figure like that. I am sure whether or not the mission was a success or not they would have appreciated being released from german captivity.
Mitch

 

[Louis Badolato]

Mitch,

First of all, I didn't quote from a work of fiction to condemn Monty, I quoted from a novel I was in the midst of writing which set forth established facts I had researched about Monty. If any of those facts are not accurate, by all means point them out.

Second, it is interesting that in your eyes Patton's order was perfectly appropriate, when at the time he was reprimanded for it by Ike, and he was facing a congressional investigation on the subject when he died.

Finally, my position is only that Patton and MacArthur committed specific acts which constituted court martial offenses (Patton as discussed on this thread, MacArthur for directly disobeying the orders of Truman, his commander & chief), I have never made mideaval attacks on Allied commanders in general. For the most part I have a great admiration for the Allied commanders.

I look at it this way: what would Patton have done to a Colonel under his command who disobeyed direct orders, and sent his or her command off in a direction other than the direction of the ordered vector of attack to rescue a family member, resulting in the loss of the entire command? I am 100% certain Patton would have immediately instituted a court martial. Your position, Mitch, is apparently that it is wrong to apply military law to a famous general. I disagree. I will leave it at that.

 

[Mitch]

Louis....

The medieval point was in response to your constant draconian call for punishment for acts that they undertook in the midst of conflict. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. As for the congressional nonsense when in history have politicians and military generals really agreed with each other fully. I see it in modern times completely at odds with each other. What would have happened? nothing IMO because of the more important things they accomplished in WWII. He was the man that was needed at the time. He may quickly have become a dinosaur in the tactful political era the war spawned but, he was very much needed to do the job required. I have little care whether they are seen as famous generals or not and, I have no hero worship for anyone I just think its easy to bemoan without all the information I mentioned and, the casualties that allegedly occured from the action and, the whole story behind it.

I have not read your non fiction work but, I mentioned it as you in backing for how poor Monty did according to your view offered as reference to another poster the need to look at your work!!!! We have been through the points I disagreed with your analysis of Monty before so, we don't need to address them again. suffice as to say, that you have shown that facts can be distorted and used to achieve whatever one wants to say. I just look at it that in the circumstances in a world war I would not have done any better and, I am sure neither would you.

I am sure you have read as I have some of the actions in Pattons command and there are cases where his officers have not acted to his full orders and, not been reprimanded its there in the histories. so, its hard to say what action he would or would not have taken but, then its a hypo question as he was the commander of the army with all his pro's and con's and took the decisions he did. You make out that he was reprimanded by Eike as if its complete support for your position he was reprimanded for many things but, was called again to do what he was best at beating the enemy.
Mitch

Mitch,

First of all, I didn't quote from a work of fiction to condemn Monty, I quoted from a novel I was in the midst of writing which set forth established facts I had researched about Monty. If any of those facts are not accurate, by all means point them out.

Second, it is interesting that in your eyes Patton's order was perfectly appropriate, when at the time he was reprimanded for it by Ike, and he was facing a congressional investigation on the subject when he died.

Finally, my position is only that Patton and MacArthur committed specific acts which constituted court martial offenses (Patton as discussed on this thread, MacArthur for directly disobeying the orders of Truman, his commander & chief), I have never made mideaval attacks on Allied commanders in general. For the most part I have a great admiration for the Allied commanders.

I look at it this way: what would Patton have done to a Colonel under his command who disobeyed direct orders, and sent his or her command off in a direction other than the direction of the ordered vector of attack to rescue a family member, resulting in the loss of the entire command? I am 100% certain Patton would have immediately instituted a court martial. Your position, Mitch, is apparently that it is wrong to apply military law to a famous general. I disagree. I will leave it at that.

 

[binder001]

Louis, minor quibble. You keep using the term "combat command" in reference to TF Baum. Having spent last week on jury duty, I know how lawyers love to use the exact meaning of words. "Combat Command" has a very specific meaning to a World War Two US Army armored division. A Combat Command is one of three sub-headquarters available to the division commander to subdivide his division for operations. A Combat command is very flexible, but usually equates to a "brigade", that is 2-4 battalions with support under a commander who usually would rate as a Col. to Brigadier General. Baum was a captain in charge of a couple companies with a few support elements added. This doesn't make Patton's actions any more acceptable. Some say that if he had committed an entire combat command of the 4th Armored the mission might have been quite successful. However moving a Combat Command would show up on the situation maps at 12th Army Group and SHAEF, where a Task Force would not.

Gary B.

 

[binder001]

A question about the rescue mission to get Patton's son. Was the mission just to rescue him or were they going to bring out any others that were with him and if so how many ? Regards Brett

Brett, the mission was intended to grab all the Allied officers held at Hammelburg. It just happened that Patton KNEW that John Waters, his son-in-law, was held there. He was clearly motivated by Waters' presence, and said so in a letter to his wife before the action. He also wouldn't mind some headlines, such as those MacArthur got when the US Army staged rescue missions in the Philippines (Cabantuan and Los Banos) in 1945. In theory the task force was to dash ahead of the Allied advance, grab the prisoners and dash back, taking advantage of the confusion in the German lines at that time. Unfortunately, as with Monty and Arnhem, the Germans failed to cooperate. They were shifting units to meet Patton's advances and Baum got in with only modest fighting, but found that the Germans had geled behind him and he didn't have the firepower ti fight his way back. Ironically, the man wounded at Hammelburg during the rescue was - John Waters!

There have been several books and articles written about the raid.

Gary B.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

Interesting points being made, I will say that I dont believe that Patton really knew where Walters was. According to what I have read on this subject, Walters was in a PW camp in Poland 7 weeks prior to the raid. The Germans force marched the Allied Officers and Enlisted men from this camp to get them out of the way of the Russians. So I have some trouble believeing that the Allies would have been in possession of information regarding the locations of all the Officers that were in PW camps throughout Germany and Austria. Maybe I am incorrect but the documentation for this hasnt been brought to light as far as I know. Patton Diaries that were made public support this and I will also tell you that Baum himself stated that he was briefed by the Intell guys that there were only 300 officers and a number of enlisted (I forget the exact number) but when he got to the camp found in the neighborhood of 1500 Officers and a large Serbian Army contingent as well as the enlisted men. So he was forced to tell the junior officers and enlistedmen to walk out as he could only find space for the senior officers 04 and above. Also I think he would have said something if he knew that Walters was there, I really doubt that Patton showed up to the Mission Briefing and pulled Baum aside and said hey go get my Son in law back and I'll give you a medal...
The other thing that is odd about this mission was the Division Commander wanted to send the entire Combat Command A but was over ruled. Now if Patton really knew his son in law was there I suspect he would have sent the entire combat command and would have cheerfully showed the press all of the Repatraited Prisoners.
There is also an alternate theory that this mission was intended to fool the Germans on the direction the American Army was taking because they were about to change direction and execute a flanking movement to the North and sending a Task Force out as part of a deception plan to seize a PW Camp to the East of the Projected Flanking movment corredor would make sense at the tactical level because it would divert the German Commanders attention away from the area. Now if this area was the intended maneuver space of another Division from a different Army Group and Pattons HQ didnt make the proper coordination to cover this movement with the HQ that controlled this space the Higher HQ would have been really angry at such a 2nd LT error from such a senior guy and there would have been some serious butt chewing. So I think there is room for some speculation on this event. Perhaps one day some more documentation will surface on this mission.

Dave

 

[The Military Workshop]

Thanks Gary.

 

[Mitch]

Interesting last night on the military channel 5 hours of Patton 360 was aired. One show devoted to the rescue attempt on the POW's Had some rather revealing dialogue from a serving Lt Col.

The points made below about the deception on the germans was mentioned as the germans believed the whole army was attacking and as such sent more troops into the area allowing the full army to push further into germany and, it was suggested reducing the number of expected casualties.

Makes one think
Mitch

 

[binder001]

Dave,

Patton knew;

The International Red Cross forwarded a list of the POWs that were moved from OFLAG64 in Poland.

On 23MAR45 Patton wrote his wife, Beatrice, "we are headed right for John's place and may get there before he is moved". (from "The Patton Papers")

Note also, if this was just a diversionary maneuver, why was a small task force accompanied by MAJ Al Stiller, one of Patton's personal aides? Stiller fessed up to Baum after the task force was on the road.

Gary B.

 

[Combat]

I just visited the Alamo recently and would say that 98% of the people visiting acquired their information about what happened from the John Wayne movie. It's likely the same with discussions of Patton. I'm sure 100% of us have seen the George C. Scott movie and probably less than 10% have read a book about Patton. The movies contain elements of truth and fact but also condense and deal in a good deal of myth creating that is almost impossible to undo from the popular culture.

 

[DMNamiot]

Well Gary I will have to reread my copy of the Patton Papers.

Dave

 

[Rob]

I just visited the Alamo recently and would say that 98% of the people visiting acquired their information about what happened from the John Wayne movie. It's likely the same with discussions of Patton. I'm sure 100% of us have seen the George C. Scott movie and probably less than 10% have read a book about Patton. The movies contain elements of truth and fact but also condense and deal in a good deal of myth creating that is almost impossible to undo from the popular culture.

Finally, someone else has said it!:smile2: You simply cannot believe everything you see on the big screen. Fans of Gallipoli/Patriot/Titanic/Braveheart take notice!^&grin:wink2:

Only kidding guys:wink2:

Rob

 

[PanzerAce1944]

This is a very good point made by "Combat". Many People in general build their facts about historical events based on what they have seen in a movie. Not to say that all movies made on historical topics are fuzzy on the accuracy of actual events.
Two examples of both ends of the spectrum would be the John Wayne "Alamo" movie and the very historically accurate WWII movie depicting Berlin in 1945 "Downfall" . Again refering back to Patton and Monty most would easily agree that both of these men made great achievements and costly mistakes.

 

[Mitch]

I don't understand this point certainly nobody I see on here has used any information based on the big screen or not in this debate. Louis made a point about the image of Patton being defined by the movies but, thats ceratinly not where the debate has been based.

The debate here has been based mainly on how one interprets the information gained. The people who get their info from films etc are the same who need stickers in hotels telling you not to use the electric hair dryer in the shower!!!!!!
Mitch