Why was Patton so great?

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by IronDuke_slith »

Whiting is irrelevant to the argument. Bearing in mind that the Pro-Patton sources include the Patton homepage and Patton uncovered [8|] I find the criticism of him a little strange and possibly an attempt to get us away from his argument, which is the same argument used by other historians whose credentials have so far not been challenged.

As for:
As I mentioned, no one has to approach Whiting with a critical mind if they choose not too.


What is interesting is that you chose this man to approach with a critical mind (presumably because he also writes fiction and you felt you could poke fun), if that is the case, fine, I'm happy to withdraw him, (although citing customer reviews from Amazon does not class as expert review in my book) as long as you now analyse the reputations of Weigley, Hastings, D'Este, Ellis and Neillands. What do you know of these people, do they know what they are talking about, which serious historians (not websites, anyone can set one of these up and ramble on) will you cite in opposition to these men. We can then assess reputations and the various arguments.

For the record, as you seem to have brought the Atlantic into it,
But I fiind it rather odd that people from Britain have diametrically opposed views on this subject vs North Americans.

This difference seems to be due to the books we are reading.

Therefore, the quality of the writer, and the facts they write about, are very important.

I find it interesting that it is Whiting who is writing about this "new" information about the Battle of the Bulge. It is also Whiting that many from the UK are using for their information.

I am just putting this information out there for others to consider.


D'Este and Weigley are North Americans, not British. Whiting had nothing "new" to say about the Bulge, he merely had a new interpretation. The section I quoted was not about an attack he had "discovered" of Patton's, merely he agreed with what a number of distinguished historians had already said. Since I have read many of the above sources in question, and you are yet to confirm which of the standard histories you have read we cannot say with any certainty that...
This difference seems to be due to the books we are reading.


As for
Therefore, the quality of the writer, and the facts they write about, are very important.


I wholeheartedly agree with you, hence my quoting of D'Este, Weigley, Hastings and Ellis etc. If we are fair, you started by quoting extensively from the Patton homepage [8|] and Patton uncovered, a site which peddles a book by Rohmer which D'Este discredited in his "Decision in Normandy". D'Este is the historian you think fair and balanced, who wrote the Patton biography, so he isn't some Brit who can be accused of writing rubbish and publishing novels about the Waffen SS under another name.

As I've said, Whiting is a very small cog in my argument, but paying him excessive attention, you give the impression of not wanting to look at the other bigger cogs. I freely withdraw Whiting if it means you will instead move on to the others.

Respect and regards,
IronDuke
IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by IronDuke_slith »

I finally got a chance to take a look at this section of you argument
The Unknown Patton


by


Charles M. Province


CHAPTER SIX


SHAEF'S THREE MAJOR ERRORS


I won't quote it all, it was a long piece you copied from a website.

I feel I've answered and proven wrong the first concerning Normandy, and I just went back to take a look at the other two. I felt something was amiss straight away because it accepted every word written by George without comment, yet persistently rubbished everybody else so I followed the link. I noticed the piece was taken from "The Patton Society homepage". So, now we have Patton uncovered, the Patton Homepage and the Patton Society homepage. These are not unbiased historical sources and are prime examples of history with an agenda that you have previoisuly complained about. Do you honestly believe these websites would criticise Patton, or present a balanced portrait?

Regards,
IronDuke
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

IronDuke:

I mentioned that I was not going to re-open the Patton debate with you.

You make inflamatory comments about my intention regarding Whiting. Basically, I saw the quote you listed from Whiting, so I wanted to know more. I knew NOTHING about Whiting before you brought him up.

When I looked him up, I then found all this info on Whiting. I suggested NOTHING about him, only that I made this info available to everyone, so that others would also be aware of what he writes.

I casually asked you if you were aware of all this - obviously you are - fine.

There was NO need to write out those long posts - no need whatsoever. And no I am not doing any investigation. [8|]

As to customer reviews: People don't have the common intelligence to know what is or is not good reading or has good scholarship? On that basis, how can any of us make any informed choices about what we see, read, eat, etc. . .

That means that your opinion about what books are good or are not good has NO meaning.

Here again, you are arguing for argument sake. . .

Those Patton websites you mention do contain a great deal of factual material. Not everything is sound material, but I use what I need based on what I previously know on the subject. I filter out what I think is wrong or partially correct. As I mentioned before, it saves a great deal writing.

I also mentioned the difference in British/North American opinions on this matter because that seems to be the way the two sides have lined up. This is not my invention. Nor am I making any judgement calls. If anything, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that divisions can be caused through carelessly assuming that some authors, in what they write, is correct. It is also due to the types of books we read.

You bring up these other authors again, with the assumption that what they have written is the FINAL TRUTH on matter.
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I finally got a chance to take a look at this section of you argument
The Unknown Patton


by


Charles M. Province


CHAPTER SIX


SHAEF'S THREE MAJOR ERRORS


I won't quote it all, it was a long piece you copied from a website.

I feel I've answered and proven wrong the first concerning Normandy, and I just went back to take a look at the other two. I felt something was amiss straight away because it accepted every word written by George without comment, yet persistently rubbished everybody else so I followed the link. I noticed the piece was taken from "The Patton Society homepage". So, now we have Patton uncovered, the Patton Homepage and the Patton Society homepage. These are not unbiased historical sources and are prime examples of history with an agenda that you have previoisuly complained about. Do you honestly believe these websites would criticise Patton, or present a balanced portrait?

Regards,
IronDuke

There is a great deal of bull hockey being written about Patton in a great deal of books by so-called "experts".

These websites exist to help explain Patton's side as well as to put out a lot of what Patton himself wrote.

Your judgement on what is or is not factual is troubling.

Is something factual because a pulp historian writes about it?

Yet, if someone, say Patton's son, writes about his father, then it is untrue?

Judging a work on history can only be done by reading a wide variety of sources. When this is done, then a person is better able to to discern a work written by other people, no matter who they are, or if they are "for" that particular person.

As I mentioned, there are plenty of books that trash Patton (and which you seem to gravitate to); fortunately, the internet exists where is a free flow of information.

And you have proven nothing about Normandy, except that you have used selected information to back your own interpretation.
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: Ludovic Coval

Von Rom,
Guess who won at the Bulge - Patton

Probably not. Patton 3rd Army played an important role in bulge reduction but it was 1st Army that took the blow and fought the whole affair. Initial keys decisions were done by V, VIII corps commanders and divisions (sending of 7th AD to St Vith, stubborn defense of 4th and 28th ID, even taking account of 106th 'failure'). It was also Ike itself that sent 82d and 101st AB to Ardennes as early than 17th December. The last German effort around Celles by a combination of 5th PZA and 6th SS PZA was countered by 1st Army not 3rd. Patton did a remarkable work once called for by Ike, still he was planning his own offensive to avoid 3rd Army units to be sent to the north. He was upset that 10th AD was took from him to VIII Corps, finally a wise decision form either Ike or Bradley as with 7th and remnants of 9th AD, Americans force could only count on three armored division for almost first week of offensive. The British XXX Corps also played a key role guarding Meuse northwest crossings, freeing US units to be engaged in another place (especially 3rd AD and 30th ID).

LC


Heheh

I know [:)]

I was just being factitious [:D]

Cheers!
Golf33
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Golf33 »

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

IronDuke:

Your way of writing and arguing is very frustrating.

What you are arguing is inconsequential.

You simply cannot see the forest for the trees [8|]
Actually what he and several others recognise is that when the trees are all rotten, the forest is no good.
I used that site for an overview of facts related to the Falaise Gap.
But it's been clearly demostrated by IronDuke and EricGuitarJames that that site is full of errors, hence it is not possible to gain 'an overview of the facts' but rather only 'an overview of some popular misinformation'. If they were 'facts' they'd be correct, instead of wrong.
Can't you see the bigger picture of what EVERYONE ELSE can see in what Patton accomplished at the Bulge??
Be careful of claiming 'everyone' as support for your views in a discussion where a large proportion of people don't actually agree with you [:)].

Regards
33
Steve Golf33 Long
Image
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Kevinugly »

Von Rom wrote
Is something factual because a pulp historian writes about it?

referring to Whiting I believe.
When I looked him up, I then found all this info on Whiting. I suggested NOTHING about him, only that I made this info available to everyone, so that others would also be aware of what he writes.


Seems you only contradict yourself.

You cast doubt upon any opinion expressed by Whiting because he writes fiction under a pseudonym. You state that his books are poor yet you've not read them yourself. Your whole approach to the subject of Patton is not that of an educated historian since you only quote from a narrow base of information. I can only suggest that you head down to your local library and read some more books, some of Whitings maybe.

http://www.generalpatton.com/library.html

has the two he wrote about Patton.

Charles B. MacDonald's 'The Battle of the Bulge' is a fine read as well. Once you are better educated then maybe we can take your opinions somewhat more seriously.

Cheers[:D]
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: Golf33
ORIGINAL: Von Rom

IronDuke:

Your way of writing and arguing is very frustrating.

What you are arguing is inconsequential.

You simply cannot see the forest for the trees [8|]
Actually what he and several others recognise is that when the trees are all rotten, the forest is no good.
I used that site for an overview of facts related to the Falaise Gap.
But it's been clearly demostrated by IronDuke and EricGuitarJames that that site is full of errors, hence it is not possible to gain 'an overview of the facts' but rather only 'an overview of some popular misinformation'. If they were 'facts' they'd be correct, instead of wrong.
Can't you see the bigger picture of what EVERYONE ELSE can see in what Patton accomplished at the Bulge??
Be careful of claiming 'everyone' as support for your views in a discussion where a large proportion of people don't actually agree with you [:)].

Regards
33

You make vacuuous comments assuming what they have written is the TRUTH just because I don't respond to them?

Sur
IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by IronDuke_slith »

IronDuke:

I mentioned that I was not going to re-open the Patton debate with you.

Too late. [;)]
You make inflamatory comments about my intention regarding Whiting. Basically, I saw the quote you listed from Whiting, so I wanted to know more. I knew NOTHING about Whiting before you brought him up.

When I looked him up, I then found all this info on Whiting. I suggested NOTHING about him, only that I made this info available to everyone, so that others would also be aware of what he writes.

I casually asked you if you were aware of all this - obviously you are - fine.

Incorrect, You actually said this:
Most reviews about Whiting's books have been poor to average. The reviews tend to indicate sloppy research and writing and are usually full of errors.

and this
Charles Whiting is a popular and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form.


and this
Why would a serious "historian" (which he is not) need to use pseudonyms?

and this
However, his scholarship seems highly suspect.


This is a whole lot of suggestion. It also seems a lot of work in a debate to track down all that information unless you had a point to make. The point must surely have been that Whiting was of questionable value judging from your words above.
There was NO need to write out those long posts - no need whatsoever. And no I am not doing any investigation. [8|]

You don't need to. D'Este, Hastings, Weigley and the others have exellent reputations. To investigate them would only harm your cause as they would be revealed as good historians, whose words I have quoted in support of my point of view.
Those Patton websites you mention do contain a great deal of factual material. Not everything is sound material, but I use what I need based on what I previously know on the subject. I filter out what I think is wrong or partially correct. As I mentioned before, it saves a great deal writing.


I got the impression the SHAEF thing you posted was copied verbatim, with little if any filtering, but I may have been wrong.
I also mentioned the difference in British/North American opinions on this matter because that seems to be the way the two sides have lined up.

No it isn't. The fact that another poster on here is from Britain doesn't make an Atlantic divide. Weigley and D'Este, two of my prime sources are distinguished American historians. The offical US history I quoted via Neillands is also not a British source.
This is not my invention. Nor am I making any judgement calls. If anything, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that divisions can be caused through carelessly assuming that some authors, in what they write, is correct. It is also due to the types of books we read.

Very true, and why I don't like the Patton websites, we might assume they are impartial and factual if we didn't realise they have an agenda.
You bring up these other authors again, with the assumption that what they have written is the FINAL TRUTH on matter.

I don't assume it to be the final truth, merely the best theory and interpretation based on current evidence. I also bring these other authors up to emphasise the weight of quality scholarship that doesn't agree with the "Patton could have won a great victory at Falaise" or the "Patton won the bulge" point of view. History doesn't really provide final truths, just best guesses, and the evidence at the moment makes the above scholars say the things they have, things I have quoted in my support.

I would prefer to shift to the events themselves. Lets discuss Haislip's Corp at Argentan and whether it could have closed the gap, lets analyse Pattons drive on Bastogne and whether he should have made greater progress than he did. We can agree some basic facts (without interpretation) and then debate???
I can say why I think it was unlikely, you can tell me why you think it was likely? Easier than quoting other people extensively.

I would also ask for your comments and thoughts into other parts of his career. The slapping incidents, some of his speeches, the war crimes allegations and the episode at Hammelburg in March 45. I by no means have a negative attitude about him concerning all these incidents, but as the relative lowlights of his career, any discussion of his greatness must take them into account.

Regards,
IronDuke
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom wrote
Is something factual because a pulp historian writes about it?

referring to Whiting I believe.
When I looked him up, I then found all this info on Whiting. I suggested NOTHING about him, only that I made this info available to everyone, so that others would also be aware of what he writes.


Seems you only contradict yourself.

You cast doubt upon any opinion expressed by Whiting because he writes fiction under a pseudonym. You state that his books are poor yet you've not read them yourself. Your whole approach to the subject of Patton is not that of an educated historian since you only quote from a narrow base of information. I can only suggest that you head down to your local library and read some more books, some of Whitings maybe.

http://www.generalpatton.com/library.html

has the two he wrote about Patton.

Charles B. MacDonald's 'The Battle of the Bulge' is a fine read as well. Once you are better educated then maybe we can take your opinions somewhat more seriously.

Cheers[:D]


If you are going to correct me, please get your facts straight.

I did not say Whiting was a poor writer. Most of the reviews about his writing say he was a poor writer.

Blame them, not me.

Frankly, if a writer who claims to be an "historian" the turns around and writes fictional pulp novels prasing the Waffen SS, then I am going to take a second look.

However, if you enjoy reading fictional pulp novels prasing the Waffen SS, then by all means, enjoy yourself.

And yes, I did go to the library today, and I did find a book by Whiting. It seems to be the type of history book I read in my 'teens. It read like a novel (which isn't bad in itself), but he injetcs far too much of his own personal opinion which is inflamatory.

I would rate him a "B" writer of popular history; don't think I would buy any of his books, though.

Better educated?

Heheheh. . .
IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by IronDuke_slith »

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom wrote
Is something factual because a pulp historian writes about it?

referring to Whiting I believe.
When I looked him up, I then found all this info on Whiting. I suggested NOTHING about him, only that I made this info available to everyone, so that others would also be aware of what he writes.


Seems you only contradict yourself.

You cast doubt upon any opinion expressed by Whiting because he writes fiction under a pseudonym. You state that his books are poor yet you've not read them yourself. Your whole approach to the subject of Patton is not that of an educated historian since you only quote from a narrow base of information. I can only suggest that you head down to your local library and read some more books, some of Whitings maybe.

http://www.generalpatton.com/library.html

has the two he wrote about Patton.

Charles B. MacDonald's 'The Battle of the Bulge' is a fine read as well. Once you are better educated then maybe we can take your opinions somewhat more seriously.

Cheers[:D]

I haven't read his book about Patton, although it is interesting to note that D'Este felt it good enough to quote without comment or qualification. Whiting was not complimentary. I think it was written around 1970.
MacDonald's is a fine book, although occasionally a little lacking in analysis. I guess it was never his intention, and that he merely wanted the best factual account that could be provided. I think it remains that.

It's a little easier to get through than Forty's recent effort, which I found a little hard to get into.

What was your BA paper in? We didn't have WWII (maybe I'm a little older than you) we just got offered Hitler's Germany. I did it but would have preferred to study the war itself.

Regards,
IronDuke
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
IronDuke:

I mentioned that I was not going to re-open the Patton debate with you.

Too late. [;)]
You make inflamatory comments about my intention regarding Whiting. Basically, I saw the quote you listed from Whiting, so I wanted to know more. I knew NOTHING about Whiting before you brought him up.

When I looked him up, I then found all this info on Whiting. I suggested NOTHING about him, only that I made this info available to everyone, so that others would also be aware of what he writes.

I casually asked you if you were aware of all this - obviously you are - fine.

Incorrect, You actually said this:
Most reviews about Whiting's books have been poor to average. The reviews tend to indicate sloppy research and writing and are usually full of errors.

and this
Charles Whiting is a popular and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form.


and this
Why would a serious "historian" (which he is not) need to use pseudonyms?

and this
However, his scholarship seems highly suspect.


This is a whole lot of suggestion. It also seems a lot of work in a debate to track down all that information unless you had a point to make. The point must surely have been that Whiting was of questionable value judging from your words above.
There was NO need to write out those long posts - no need whatsoever. And no I am not doing any investigation. [8|]

You don't need to. D'Este, Hastings, Weigley and the others have exellent reputations. To investigate them would only harm your cause as they would be revealed as good historians, whose words I have quoted in support of my point of view.
Those Patton websites you mention do contain a great deal of factual material. Not everything is sound material, but I use what I need based on what I previously know on the subject. I filter out what I think is wrong or partially correct. As I mentioned before, it saves a great deal writing.


I got the impression the SHAEF thing you posted was copied verbatim, with little if any filtering, but I may have been wrong.
I also mentioned the difference in British/North American opinions on this matter because that seems to be the way the two sides have lined up.

No it isn't. The fact that another poster on here is from Britain doesn't make an Atlantic divide. Weigley and D'Este, two of my prime sources are distinguished American historians. The offical US history I quoted via Neillands is also not a British source.
This is not my invention. Nor am I making any judgement calls. If anything, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that divisions can be caused through carelessly assuming that some authors, in what they write, is correct. It is also due to the types of books we read.

Very true, and why I don't like the Patton websites, we might assume they are impartial and factual if we didn't realise they have an agenda.
You bring up these other authors again, with the assumption that what they have written is the FINAL TRUTH on matter.

I don't assume it to be the final truth, merely the best theory and interpretation based on current evidence. I also bring these other authors up to emphasise the weight of quality scholarship that doesn't agree with the "Patton could have won a great victory at Falaise" or the "Patton won the bulge" point of view. History doesn't really provide final truths, just best guesses, and the evidence at the moment makes the above scholars say the things they have, things I have quoted in my support.

I would prefer to shift to the events themselves. Lets discuss Haislip's Corp at Argentan and whether it could have closed the gap, lets analyse Pattons drive on Bastogne and whether he should have made greater progress than he did. We can agree some basic facts (without interpretation) and then debate???
I can say why I think it was unlikely, you can tell me why you think it was likely? Easier than quoting other people extensively.

I would also ask for your comments and thoughts into other parts of his career. The slapping incidents, some of his speeches, the war crimes allegations and the episode at Hammelburg in March 45. I by no means have a negative attitude about him concerning all these incidents, but as the relative lowlights of his career, any discussion of his greatness must take them into account.

Regards,
IronDuke

Heheh

Most of the reviews about Whiting say he is a poor writer - heheh

Can't you read?

Those reviews do all the talking for me.

When some who claims to be an historian (and who you quote), writes a book criticzing Patton, and also turns out to use another name to write pulp fiction novels praising the SS, then I will take a second look at him.

You seem to be highly critical of Patton or anyone pro-Patton, but Whiting's many writing lives seems to suit you just fine.

That tells me a great deal about your critical thinking skills. Heheh

Nooo, you're not critical of Patton, whatsoever. . . [8|]
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

I don't assume it to be the final truth, merely the best theory and interpretation based on current evidence. I also bring these other authors up to emphasise the weight of quality scholarship that doesn't agree with the "Patton could have won a great victory at Falaise" or the "Patton won the bulge" point of view. History doesn't really provide final truths, just best guesses, and the evidence at the moment makes the above scholars say the things they have, things I have quoted in my support.

I would prefer to shift to the events themselves. Lets discuss Haislip's Corp at Argentan and whether it could have closed the gap, lets analyse Pattons drive on Bastogne and whether he should have made greater progress than he did. We can agree some basic facts (without interpretation) and then debate???
I can say why I think it was unlikely, you can tell me why you think it was likely? Easier than quoting other people extensively.

I would also ask for your comments and thoughts into other parts of his career. The slapping incidents, some of his speeches, the war crimes allegations and the episode at Hammelburg in March 45. I by no means have a negative attitude about him concerning all these incidents, but as the relative lowlights of his career, any discussion of his greatness must take them into account.

Regards,
IronDuke

So what are you trying to say?
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Kevinugly »

Frankly, if a writer who claims to be an "historian" the turns around and writes fictional pulp novels prasing the Waffen SS, then I am going to take a second look.

However, if you enjoy reading fictional pulp novels prasing the Waffen SS, then by all means, enjoy yourself.

Cheap shot[:D]

No doubt you would regard Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan as 'pulp astronomers' too.

Which specific book by Whiting? What is wrong with historians expressing their own opinions in books? Evidentally you have not read that many history books since otherwise you would be aware that that is what historians do. When researching for a thesis, essay or whatever you have to ensure that you read as much as possible on a subject by as many different authors as possible. This then gives you a broad base from which to draw your own conclusions. Therefore, I read books by Whiting, MacDonald, John Terraine, Martin Gilbert, RAC Parker, Richard Overy .... need I go on? Since I don't have my university work here I cannot list the journals I consulted or the authors whose books I borrowed and quoted. If you would like though I could dig them out of my parent's loft next time I'm over there and give you a list of recommended works[:)]
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

Here are more views by a wide variety of writers about the decision to stop Patton from closing the Falaise Gap:

The Falaise Pocket

World War II Allied Encriclement of the German Armies. Failure or Success of the Allied Leadership and Planning?

Authors: DeLauder, Braden P.; MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLL QUANTICO VA

Abstract: By August 1944, the Allies had broken out of the Normandy beachhead and were rapidly exploiting a breakthrough in the German lines. In early August, Hitler ordered a heavy single pronged attack to the west to cut off the US forces to the south. Bradley recognized this as an opportunity to encircle the German Army in France. By turning Patton's Third Army, in the south, north towards Argentan, Bradley formed the lower jaw of a pincer movement while Montgomery ordered Crerar's First Canadian Army south to push towards Falaise to form the upper jaw. Connecting the Allied armies between Falaise and Argentan would completely surround the German army. To the north, Montgomery's forces struggled to push south against the German defensive line. Patton's Third Army, in concert with the XIX Tactical Air Command, was making extremely rapid progress. bate on the 12th of August, Bradley stopped Patton's forces from moving north of Argentan. The decision to stop Third Army's movement north allowed many German personnel to escape from the Falaise pocket. The failure of the Allied forces to close the Falaise Gap was the result of lack of communication directly linked to the type of personalities of the commanders.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/05/0593/A059304.html

In August 1944 Lt. Gen. Omar N. Bradley, commanding the 12th U.S. Army Group, abruptly halted the advance of the XV Corps of Lt. Gen. George S. Patton's Third Army. He thus prevented its movement northward through Argentan toward a juncture with Canadian forces coming south from Caen toward Falaise. As a consequence, the Allies failed to close the Argentan-Falaise pocket. The virtually surrounded German forces in Normandy, escaping through the Argentan-Falaise gap, avoided complete encirclement and almost certain destruction.

Why General Bradley made his decision and whether he was correct are questions that have stirred discussion ever since World War II.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_17.htm


When Patton died, an “official history” was indeed agreed upon and corroborated by Bradley, Eisenhower and Montgomery. They blamed each other for various aspects, but in the main part lied about the true cause of each’s largest disasters: Market Garden, Caen, Hurtgen, the Battle of the Bulge, the failure to capture Berlin, the failure to keep all of the armies supplied, the failure to take Prague, the failure to close off the Falaise Gap and seal the fate of the 11 divisions trapped there; each had an “official” cause, an “official” whipping boy. Documents from each of these episodes were fudged while others were removed, destroyed and tampered with; and the generals corroborated each others stories in their memoirs.

The reason why the generals cooperated so well on this issue was because each of them had made mistakes. Each had committed an atrocious disaster which they felt had to be kept from public knowledge. Only one general, Patton, had never lost thousands of men on a hopelessly mismanaged mission, and thus only he was above corruption. If a spiteful general were to bring up the Battle of Metz, the Third’s most bloody battle, Patton could counter that there were 3 dead Germans to 1 dead American, even in that desperate battle. And the Battle for Metz would never be investigated because investigation would only uncover the damning evidence of SHAEF’s decision to starve the Third Army, and Com Z’s negligence and wastefulness in keeping the armies supplied.

http://www.pattonuncovered.com/html/chapter.html


Yet the deepest problem with A Soldier's Life is that it really is not a soldier's life. One could make the argument that on key occasions—the approach to Brest, the closing of the Falaise Gap, the crossing of the Seine River, the August race to the Siegfried Line, the initial desire to go much deeper to the rear of the Bulge, and the decision to stop before Prague—thousands of lives might have been saved had superiors ceded to Patton's judgment. Such controversial and monumental decisions affected an entire theater; yet they warrant only a few pages in Hirshson's account and are overshadowed by stories of Patton's purported liaisons, insensitive language, and blinkered class biases. In lieu of in-depth military analysis, we get a few extended quotations from Chester Wilmot, B.H. Liddell Hart, and S.L.A. Marshall—none of whom is known for consistency, fairness, or sympathy to Patton.

http://victorhanson.com/Curiosities/Patton.html

Unlike the Falaise Gap in the West, where a too-cautious Bradley again did need heed Patton's calls to allow him to drive ahead and seal the trap shut, the Soviet commanders did not make the same mistake. No one got out of the Minsk pocket. The swamps and forests of Belorussia became a huge killing zone as Red Army forces and their partisan auxiliaries took their overdue but thorough revenge.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Mp ... lr=lang_en

D'Este's portrayal of some of the other leading figures in World War II is most revealing. Contrary to his popular designation as "the GI General" (thanks to the work of Ernie Pyle), General Omar Bradley, who would later win five stars and a rank as General of the Army, is shown to be quite mercurial and a martinet. Contrary to what was shown in Patton, Bradley despised Patton, and sought to undercut him at every turn. When Bradley and Patton were allies, it was mostly out of convenience--at times when Bradley did not know Patton well enough to dislike him, or when Bradley and Patton had a mutual interest in opposing the actions of Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery. While Patton was feared as a tough boss, it was actually Bradley who sacked more commanders under his authority, while Patton was in favor of letting his commanders have more of a chance to prove themselves. And Bradley is severely criticized for his indecision and timidity as a commander, particularly in his performance at the Battle of the Falaise Gap--a battle where Patton's genius for warfare and boldness in command would have likely served the Allies better.

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/002773.html

Questionable leadership and strategy were abundant during these operations, but never was the courage and bravery of the Canadian soldier questioned. Problems were not limited to the Canadians though. The German counterattack at Mortain can only be considered a monumental failure. Bradley stopping Patton at Argentan was the classic error committed in the Normandy campaign. In protecting the strong, fresh American army which could have been in Falaise a day or two after they reached Argentan, Bradley lost a chance for a quick conclusion to the campaign.

http://www.nwha.org/news_2Q2003/news_page5.html

George S. Patton was a disaster as a proconsul in postwar Bavaria. Yet Eisenhower and Bradley — nicer, steadier, and more judicious men both — failed to close the Falaise Gap, unwisely restrained Patton at the Seine River and near the German border, and employed orthodoxy, not creativity, at the Battle of the Bulge. Thank God that both of them, and not Patton, later became fixtures of American government; but weep for the thousands of GIs dead because they, and not Patton, ruled the American battlefield in Europe.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/ha ... 11102.html

Yenne also briefly addresses the controversial decision to halt Patton’s columns at Falaise and wait for the Canadian First Army to close the encirclement of the bulk of the German Seventh Army that COBRA and the eventual British-Canadian breakout produced. Eventually, Bradley was ready to change his mind just as the Canadian forces broke through to close the gap. Ostensibly, the decision was made in order to avoid fratricide between the two converging Allied armies. Had Patton been allowed to continue, the Falaise Gap would have probably been closed in hours rather than days. As it was, tens of thousands of German troops escaped during the delay.

http://members.aol.com/TFGrantel/books/cobra.html


But by that time, what could have been a great encirclement echoing some of the pivotal battles on the Eastern Front had become something less-a victory, but one qualified by the number of German forces that had been able to flee through the gap. The fact that enemy forces did escape outraged American commanders, from the even-tempered Eisenhower and Bradley to the mercurial Patton. They saw it as yet another example of bad generalship by Montgomery, who pressured the pocket's western end, squeezing the Germans out eastward like a tube of toothpaste, rather than capping the open gap. Patton, ever aggressive, pleaded with Bradley for clearance to cut across the narrow gap, in front of retreating German forces, from Argentan north to Falaise. But Bradley wisely demurred, recognizing that the outnumbered Americans might be "trampled" by the German divisions racing for the gap. "I much preferred," Bradley recollected subsequently, "a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise."

http://www.ehistory.com/wwii/books/d-day1944/0035.cfm

Featherston, a journalist with the Durham, N.C., Herald-Sun , reviews the controversy over Gen. Omar Bradley's failure to close the gap, a measure that would have encircled large German formations in France and shortened the war. Two German armies escaped through the so-called Falaise Gap but, as the author points out, the Allies took 50,000 prisoners and counted 10,000 enemy dead.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:al ... lr=lang_en

Blumenson points out that, though Bradley created the opportunity to destroy much of the German armored force west of the Seine, he marched to the Army Group boundary and waited. In the meantime, the Canadians found the going hard and could not close the gap between themselves and the Americans. Instead of requesting a boundary change and attacking to close the gap, Bradley shifted part of XV Corps, which had reached the boundary south of Argentan, east toward the Seine. Thus, on August 17, at the moment of crisis, U.S. side forces were not positioned to close the gap, and the Canadians still had not reached the boundary. Without spelling it out, Blumenson arrays the facts and demonstrates clearly that the Allies missed an opportunity. In the end, confusion on both sides, an uncharacteristic lack of supervision by Montgomery, Bradley's movement toward the Seine and determined efforts by the Germans produced the first phase of what the Germans called the Miracle in the West.

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/(re ... enDocument

The Germans now tried to stop the allies’ advance. Against his generals’ advice, Hitler ordered 11 of his best divisions to attack the allies. Patton then went in one huge sweep behind all of the German armies, encircling them between two cities, known as Falaise and Argentan. Patton’s Third Army was at Falaise, and Montgomery’s 21st Army Group was north of Argentan.

In one of the most stupid decisions of the war, Patton was ordered to halt at Falaise and wait for Montgomery to close the gap between the two cities. It took Montgomery 2 weeks to close the gap, during which most of the German divisions escaped. Had Patton been allowed to close the gap, the war would have ended in August 1944. There would have never been an “East Germany” and a Communist dominated Eastern Europe. Thousands of Jewish lives would also have been saved.

http://www.barbaraboland.com/_wsn/page3.html


Operations Tractable and Cobra's pursuit are splendid examples of Allied armor at its operational best and strategic worst. Despite inspiring accomplishments by individual divisions and corps, the dynamic maneuver and total victory offered by Patton's U.S. Third Army were to be rejected by the conservative Bradley.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/010916.shtml
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Whiting is irrelevant to the argument. Bearing in mind that the Pro-Patton sources include the Patton homepage and Patton uncovered [8|] I find the criticism of him a little strange and possibly an attempt to get us away from his argument, which is the same argument used by other historians whose credentials have so far not been challenged.

As for:
As I mentioned, no one has to approach Whiting with a critical mind if they choose not too.


What is interesting is that you chose this man to approach with a critical mind (presumably because he also writes fiction and you felt you could poke fun), if that is the case, fine, I'm happy to withdraw him, (although citing customer reviews from Amazon does not class as expert review in my book) as long as you now analyse the reputations of Weigley, Hastings, D'Este, Ellis and Neillands. What do you know of these people, do they know what they are talking about, which serious historians (not websites, anyone can set one of these up and ramble on) will you cite in opposition to these men. We can then assess reputations and the various arguments.

For the record, as you seem to have brought the Atlantic into it,
But I fiind it rather odd that people from Britain have diametrically opposed views on this subject vs North Americans.

This difference seems to be due to the books we are reading.

Therefore, the quality of the writer, and the facts they write about, are very important.

I find it interesting that it is Whiting who is writing about this "new" information about the Battle of the Bulge. It is also Whiting that many from the UK are using for their information.

I am just putting this information out there for others to consider.


D'Este and Weigley are North Americans, not British. Whiting had nothing "new" to say about the Bulge, he merely had a new interpretation. The section I quoted was not about an attack he had "discovered" of Patton's, merely he agreed with what a number of distinguished historians had already said. Since I have read many of the above sources in question, and you are yet to confirm which of the standard histories you have read we cannot say with any certainty that...
This difference seems to be due to the books we are reading.


As for
Therefore, the quality of the writer, and the facts they write about, are very important.


I wholeheartedly agree with you, hence my quoting of D'Este, Weigley, Hastings and Ellis etc. If we are fair, you started by quoting extensively from the Patton homepage [8|] and Patton uncovered, a site which peddles a book by Rohmer which D'Este discredited in his "Decision in Normandy". D'Este is the historian you think fair and balanced, who wrote the Patton biography, so he isn't some Brit who can be accused of writing rubbish and publishing novels about the Waffen SS under another name.

As I've said, Whiting is a very small cog in my argument, but paying him excessive attention, you give the impression of not wanting to look at the other bigger cogs. I freely withdraw Whiting if it means you will instead move on to the others.

Respect and regards,
IronDuke

Could you make this clearer?
Golf33
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Golf33 »

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

You make vacuuous comments assuming what they have written is the TRUTH just because I don't respond to them?

Sur
No, I simply object to your claim that 'everyone' supports you when this is palpably untrue.

Regards
33
Steve Golf33 Long
Image
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Kevinugly »

The Germans now tried to stop the allies’ advance. Against his generals’ advice, Hitler ordered 11 of his best divisions to attack the allies. Patton then went in one huge sweep behind all of the German armies, encircling them between two cities, known as Falaise and Argentan. Patton’s Third Army was at Falaise, and Montgomery’s 21st Army Group was north of Argentan.

In one of the most stupid decisions of the war, Patton was ordered to halt at Falaise and wait for Montgomery to close the gap between the two cities. It took Montgomery 2 weeks to close the gap, during which most of the German divisions escaped. Had Patton been allowed to close the gap, the war would have ended in August 1944. There would have never been an “East Germany” and a Communist dominated Eastern Europe. Thousands of Jewish lives would also have been saved.

http://www.barbaraboland.com/_wsn/page3.html


Total drivel. The 11 divisions had already been decimated, Kluge only agreed to the attack since to refuse would have had him carted back to Germany and strung up with chicken wire. 'No communist dominated Eastern Europe' - the zones of influence had already been agreed by the Allied leaders. You expect me to take you seriously when you quote nonsense like this[:-]
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly
Frankly, if a writer who claims to be an "historian" the turns around and writes fictional pulp novels prasing the Waffen SS, then I am going to take a second look.

However, if you enjoy reading fictional pulp novels prasing the Waffen SS, then by all means, enjoy yourself.

Cheap shot[:D]

No doubt you would regard Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan as 'pulp astronomers' too.

Which specific book by Whiting? What is wrong with historians expressing their own opinions in books? Evidentally you have not read that many history books since otherwise you would be aware that that is what historians do. When researching for a thesis, essay or whatever you have to ensure that you read as much as possible on a subject by as many different authors as possible. This then gives you a broad base from which to draw your own conclusions. Therefore, I read books by Whiting, MacDonald, John Terraine, Martin Gilbert, RAC Parker, Richard Overy .... need I go on? Since I don't have my university work here I cannot list the journals I consulted or the authors whose books I borrowed and quoted. If you would like though I could dig them out of my parent's loft next time I'm over there and give you a list of recommended works[:)]

You are making judgement calls about me, when you know absolutely nothing about me.

The book I read was "The Battle of the Bulge" - the other BotB in Alsace-Lorraine. His writing wasn't too bad. It just felt like I was reading a novel. Which I mention is not bad in itself.

The writing was a bit choppy, but on the whole, clear and understandable.

I forget the page, but when he is talking about some American soldiers getting medals he says (and I'm paraphrasing): "It would appear from looking at the names that those from the lower rungs of society have a bit more fortitude than their WASP counterparts."

Ho goes on in greater detail, but I think you get the idea.

He tends to inject other wholly un-called for comments such as these.

You have to wonder where his editor is. [8|]

I note in some the reviews about his books that other readers complain about the same thing.

As I mentioned, there are far better historians out there that I would rather spend my money on.
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: Why was Patton so great?

Post by Kevinugly »

Von Rom wrote
You are making judgement calls about me, when you know absolutely nothing about me.


Yet earlier you wrote of me
However, if you enjoy reading fictional pulp novels prasing the Waffen SS, then by all means, enjoy yourself.


Pure hypocrisy[:D]
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”