Why was Patton so great?

[Von Rom]

More on Turner:

Earlier, Captain Turner was convinced Japan would only attack Russia and just before Pearl Harbor he convinced Stark that Japan was not ready to attack the U.S. only the British.

The new DNI Theodore S. Wilkinson refused to challenge Turner’s rebuff of a further specific war warning drafted by Captain Arthur H. McCollum on 5 December. Again on 6 December, Stafford tried again but was dismissed by Noyes so as not to antagonize Turner. On the Army side, General George G. Marshall and intermediaries vetoed similar requests made by Colonels Rufus S. Bratton and Otis K. Sadtler. Later, Marshall denied receiving the related decrypts.

As Washington politics go, both Stafford, Bratton and Sadtler were relegated to rather minor posts and discredited, while Noyes and Turner were given prime advancement billets and promotions. Although General Marshall was held to have been derelict in his duties by the first Army board of inquiry on the Pearl Harbor attack, the subsequent congressional investigation only found Admiral Kimmel and General Short at fault for the Pearl Harbor disaster.

Marshall had the backing of both Secretary of War Stimson and President Roosevelt. Stimson instigated a fierce campaign to reverse Marshall’s prior dereliction finding. During the latter hearings, none of Turner’s subordinates would break ranks and reveal Turner’s derelictions due to his great wartime achievements and rank as Vice Admiral.

Only subsequent revelations have verified Turner’s and Marshall’s responsibility for impeding more appropriate and timely warnings urged by intelligence professionals based on Purple decrypts.

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/intel ... harbor.htm


"Wherever or whenever Washington may have thought the Japanese cat would probably jump, Hawaii's primary mission was to meet it there if it came. Yet both the Army and Navy commands there acted as if there were no chance of a Japanese overseas attack on them. What they actually did and did not do, simply spelled 'It can't happen here.'"

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/48jul/miles-p1.htm

[freeboy]

Read something of the man.. not a great father... but a driven fanatical leader ... many hated him.. read comments from some of your Band of Brothers actual figures.. MAjor Winters for one...
But being liked isn't the ?... He won battles.. and took risks, caused short term casualties while looking to win the big picture.....
Imagine a reinforced Patton with food and fuel in Sept Oct?

I personnally believe have he been included in Normandy the terrible slogging progress the armeis faced would have been dramatically shortened... all depending of course on his roll... Kind of funny that the two generals in this fight.. normandy... each where hampered by there own higher ups...
I remember during discussions like these the comments by Pieper.. about worthless german generals..... all armies have their deadweight...

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Sarge
Relieve Bastogne [8|] 101st was doing just fine, they didn't need Frickin Patton . Patton just happend to be the first one to show up. The 101st held that ground and would have kept holding.

No they were not doing "just fine" and most certainly not could have held out indefinately. Patton's action not only relieved Bastogne, but ended the Ardennes offensive. If the 101 was "doing just fine" then they should have advanced and destroyed the German advance on their own [8|]

------------

Regarding the 3rd army breakout and how "easy" it was. If breaking through German lines was such a stroll in the park, why is Patton the only Allied commander to have done so on such a scale? The record breaking advance of the 3rd army is still unmatched and it's not an exagerration. Check the official figures for that operation.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: Sarge
Relieve Bastogne [8|] 101st was doing just fine, they didn't need Frickin Patton . Patton just happend to be the first one to show up. The 101st held that ground and would have kept holding.

No they were not doing "just fine" and most certainly not could have held out indefinately. Patton's action not only relieved Bastogne, but ended the Ardennes offensive. If the 101 was "doing just fine" then they should have advanced and destroyed the German advance on their own [8|]

I think you need to re-read my post. And look up some FACTs on the 101st in Bastogne. Then take in the consideration of winter clothing , equipment , ammo and all basics need to even try to hold ground let alone stop such a advance. By no means did the 101st do it on their own (dont even think I implied that). Now take the 101st out of the equation, were you think the German advance would have been slowed down let alone stoped. Any other regular line unit would have been steamrolled and the remaining troops surrendered in a wholesale fashion.The 101st at the VEARY least gave the Allies time to get their Sh#& together. Patton did not save the 101st or Bastogne by no means. And were is it in my post does it say INDEFINATELY [&:] . Did Patton save lives of the 101st -yes, did Patton save the 101st ............NO. And as for the comment as why did the 101st not advance and destroy the Germans on their own [8|]

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Little or nothing standing in Patton's way?

Third Army liberated something like 10,000 towns and cities, freed 89,000 square miles, and killed or captured 1,443,000 enemy soldiers. Any good reference book will have these figures.

I have a problem with these figures: it's like saying that the feldgendarmerie is the unit that captured millions over millions of russians... you see where i want to go
Yes it's true , Pattons army captured lots of germans, but the fight was elsewhere. I don't want to say that 3rd A did nothing of a fight to breakout and liberate France, but there were no fanatical Kevin Kostners to stop 3rd A...

The British and Canadians did do their part. But it was Patton's tactics and sheer aggressiveness that pushed the Germans back. Patton moved Third Army 600 miles in just a few weeks, completely by-passing many German divisions. . .

I agree that it's Patton's manoeuvres that permitted the close of the Falaise gap, but again if the canadians did not suffer a casualty rate 10 times superior than every other units and like 15 times (IIRC) that of the americans, there would not have been a gap neither...

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Little or nothing standing in Patton's way?

Third Army liberated something like 10,000 towns and cities, freed 89,000 square miles, and killed or captured 1,443,000 enemy soldiers. Any good reference book will have these figures.

I have a problem with these figures: it's like saying that the feldgendarmerie is the unit that captured millions over millions of russians... you see where i want to go
Yes it's true , Pattons army captured lots of germans, but the fight was elsewhere. I don't want to say that 3rd A did nothing of a fight to breakout and liberate France, but there were no fanatical Kevin Kostners to stop 3rd A...

The British and Canadians did do their part. But it was Patton's tactics and sheer aggressiveness that pushed the Germans back. Patton moved Third Army 600 miles in just a few weeks, completely by-passing many German divisions. . .

I agree that it's Patton's manoeuvres that permitted the close of the Falaise gap, but again if the canadians did not suffer a casualty rate 10 times superior than every other units and like 15 times (IIRC) that of the americans, there would not have been a gap neither...

Hi

Well, those statistics are not my invention - heheh

Patton remains one of the 20th century's best-known and least-understood military leaders. Mention his name and most people immediately conjure an image of George C. Scott whose inspired portrayal provided an accurate but incomplete representation of Patton. It is worth noting that Patton's strategies minimized casualties of his own troops while maximizing destruction of those whom his troops opposed, that he assembled an extraordinarily talented staff to whom he delegated effectively and whose members remained steadfastly loyal to him, and that under his leadership his troops achieved truly stunning results, often with severely limited resources and under political constraints.

After the initial invasion at Normandy, the Allies' progress was suddenly slowed. German resistance was heavy in France. U.S. First Army General Omar Bradley was faced with a war of attrition that had no foreseeable outcome. His attempts to breakout of the Bocage were met with blunting German force. Two days after a German Panzer attack on the First Army, Bradley decided to use a plan originally proposed by Third Army General George Patton that was to be known as Operation Cobra.

In his book Patton: A Genius for War Carlo D'Este states on page 638 that in one month alone (by August 26, 1944) Third Army had inflicted on the enemy 136,500 casualties, captured or destroyed 4,353 German tanks, artillery and vehicles, while suffering only 18,239 casualties, and losing only 269 tanks, 74 guns and 956 vehicles of its own.

On page 724 of the same book:

"... during a twenty-four-day period [Third Army had made] four assault crossings of the Rhine, [had captured] twenty-four major cities with a total population of more than 3 million; [had liberated] 12,400 square miles of territory; [had liberated] Ohrdrof and Buchenwald and 40,000 Allied POWs; [had] seized. . . the great gold bullion cache at Merkers; [had captured]. . . 280,661 German POWs, with 14,300 more killed and 34,200 wounded. . . ."

I could go on and on about Patton's and Third Army's achievements. Their achievements were simply astounding and unbelievable, but true [&o]

All of this does not take away from the other Allies: the British and Canadians were magnificent in their fighting.

However, Patton was a pure warrior - who lived, breathed, and thought war. Unlike the other Allied Generals who were often Staff Officers, Patton was a combat general in the fullest meaning of that term. He loved war.

He achieved his results with relatively inexperienced, green troops. They often peformed the impossible for him. His troops loved Patton; he in turn, loved them. . .

I highly recommend to everyone the book above on Patton by Carlo D'Este. One has to wonder how much sooner the war might have been over, and how many fewer lives might have been lost, had the Allied High Command given Patton free reign in Europe.

Cheers!

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

I think you need to re-read my post. And look up some FACTs on the 101st in Bastogne. Then take in the consideration of winter clothing , equipment , ammo and all basics need to even try to hold ground let alone stop such a advance.

What are you trying to say? I truly don't understand what point you're making above.

By no means did the 101st do it on their own (dont even think I implied that).

You claimed they were doing just fine and Patton happened to be the first sod to bump into them. Let me ask you, did the 101 have an unlimited number of reserves to drop into the area, or do you think the Germans would simply go home if no one had come to their rescue? How long do you think the 101 could sustain casualties in this battle and remain effective? Your implication was indefinately.

Now take the 101st out of the equation, were you think the German advance would have been slowed down let alone stoped.

How is this relevant to Pattons march to relive Bastogne?

Any other regular line unit would have been steamrolled

Probably, and this is relevant how?

Did Patton save lives of the 101st -yes, did Patton save the 101st ............NO.

Had Patton done what Montgomery did- nothing, how long would the 101 have lasted? Perhaps when the weather cleared allied air power might have saved them, but left alone indefinately, no there would have been no 101 left.

[Firefly]

ORIGINAL: Hexed Gamer

Wavel did all the work in the desert. He was robbed of forces for Greece, and then robbed of credit for the longgest advance in history.

Not so, Wavell was replaced by Auchinleck, who was a total disaster and was in turn replaced by Alexander. Montgomery was commmander of the Eighth Army not C-in-C Middle East. The confusion arises beause Auchinleck took direct command of the Eighth Army following the defeat at Gazala
,

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: Sarge

I think you need to re-read my post. And look up some FACTs on the 101st in Bastogne. Then take in the consideration of winter clothing , equipment , ammo and all basics need to even try to hold ground let alone stop such a advance.

What are you trying to say? I truly don't understand what point you're making above.

By no means did the 101st do it on their own (dont even think I implied that).

You claimed they were doing just fine and Patton happened to be the first sod to bump into them. Let me ask you, did the 101 have an unlimited number of reserves to drop into the area, or do you think the Germans would simply go home if no one had come to their rescue? How long do you think the 101 could sustain casualties in this battle and remain effective? Your implication was indefinately.

Now take the 101st out of the equation, were you think the German advance would have been slowed down let alone stoped.

How is this relevant to Pattons march to relive Bastogne?

Any other regular line unit would have been steamrolled

Probably, and this is relevant how?

Did Patton save lives of the 101st -yes, did Patton save the 101st ............NO.

Had Patton done what Montgomery did- nothing, how long would the 101 have lasted? Perhaps when the weather cleared allied air power might have saved them, but left alone indefinately, no there would have been no 101 left.

OK uncle I am not going to get into a Pi##ing match with ya. You have your point of view and I have mine lets just leave it at that

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Funny, Rommel repeatedly had his arse kicked from Africa to France and he's considered a genius. After spending an entire year using resources to create fortresses, gun emplacements, minefields, beach obstacles and anti-aircraft, his great defensive works were bypassed in 8 hours, and in some areas, less than an hour.

Please place the blame where it should be. Rommel himself claimed that he had no chance of repelling an invasion if he was not allowed to move the units as he desired, and he also stated that he was not given enough time on the atlantic wall. So to claim that this makes him less of a commander just does not compute.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Funny, Rommel repeatedly had his arse kicked from Africa to France and he's considered a genius

What a wonder beeing outnumbered 20:1 in tanks.....[;)]

[freeboy]

What would have happened at omaha if Rommel's ideas for forward basing and immediate counter attack where used by the still strong, ie not depleated armor?
Carantan? GOLD? Give up the Rommel bashing guys.. this guy new his tactics...

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

What would have happened at omaha if Rommel's ideas for forward basing and immediate counter attack where used by the still strong, ie not depleated armor?
Carantan? GOLD? Give up the Rommel bashing guys.. this guy new his tactics...

Rommel knew his stuff alright.

It's interesting that a few Generals at OKW detested Rommel and hated him for his successes while he commanded the Afrika Korps. Those jealous officers had Hitler's ear and persuaded Hitler NOT to send reinforcements to North Africa. We can only imagine what Rommel might have done with an extra panzer division or two.

In Normandy, Rommel advocated attacking the beaches with panzer divisions immediately upon the Allied invasion. It would indeed be interesting to see what would have happened. With the German and Allied troops so close together fighting, the Allies would not have been able to use naval support, and even air-ground attack would have to have been done carefully. . .

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


However, Patton was a pure warrior - who lived, breathed, and thought war. Unlike the other Allied Generals who were often Staff Officers, Patton was a combat general in the fullest meaning of that term. He loved war.

He achieved his results with relatively inexperienced, green troops. They often peformed the impossible for him. His troops loved Patton; he in turn, loved them. . .

I highly recommend to everyone the book above on Patton by Carlo D'Este. One has to wonder how much sooner the war might have been over, and how many fewer lives might have been lost, had the Allied High Command given Patton free reign in Europe.

Cheers!

You have to be careful when you refer to 'other generals who were mostly staff officers' - I don't want to criticise what I'm not sure of so could you clarify this?

Regarding giving Patton 'free rein' in Europe I'm not sure this would have achieved much. Following the Falaise battle Allied supply lines were stretched very thin, Ike decided to focus on Monty's drive into Holland and (hopefully) Northern Germany. In hindsight one might see this as a failure but there is no reason to suppose that the Third Army could have pushed through the Siegfried Line any faster than they did historically. Once through in '45 Patton developed an obsession with Bavaria and the concept of a Nazi 'hold-out' in the region skewing the Western Allies strategy in that direction. See Charles Whiting's 'Siegfried: The Nazi's Last Stand' for a discussion of this. Given Patton's opinion on the Soviets and if he had managed to 'bounce' the Rhine and stike eastwards in late '44 one wonders whether he might have started a 'hot' war with the USSR.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


However, Patton was a pure warrior - who lived, breathed, and thought war. Unlike the other Allied Generals who were often Staff Officers, Patton was a combat general in the fullest meaning of that term. He loved war.

He achieved his results with relatively inexperienced, green troops. They often peformed the impossible for him. His troops loved Patton; he in turn, loved them. . .

I highly recommend to everyone the book above on Patton by Carlo D'Este. One has to wonder how much sooner the war might have been over, and how many fewer lives might have been lost, had the Allied High Command given Patton free reign in Europe.

Cheers!

You have to be careful when you refer to 'other generals who were mostly staff officers' - I don't want to criticise what I'm not sure of so could you clarify this?

Regarding giving Patton 'free rein' in Europe I'm not sure this would have achieved much. Following the Falaise battle Allied supply lines were stretched very thin, Ike decided to focus on Monty's drive into Holland and (hopefully) Northern Germany. In hindsight one might see this as a failure but there is no reason to suppose that the Third Army could have pushed through the Siegfried Line any faster than they did historically. Once through in '45 Patton developed an obsession with Bavaria and the concept of a Nazi 'hold-out' in the region skewing the Western Allies strategy in that direction. See Charles Whiting's 'Siegfried: The Nazi's Last Stand' for a discussion of this. Given Patton's opinion on the Soviets and if he had managed to 'bounce' the Rhine and stike eastwards in late '44 one wonders whether he might have started a 'hot' war with the USSR.

Staff Officer: any officer who had never seen combat, or was never a front line combat officer, such as Ike. The Staff Officers all had critical roles to play, but I am looking at it from Patton's point of view. He was no desk officer, and preferred being in the thick of things. In other words, Patton was a combat general.

Ike stopped Patton, partly due to fuel. But it was primarily because all resources were going to be given to Monty for Market Garden. We all know how that turned out - it was a fiasco. . .

Had Patton been given every resource possible, he would most likely have shortened the war by at least a couple of months, and would no doubt have saved many lives on both sides by doing so.

When Patton was ordered to halt, and was told NOT to close the Falaise Gap when he wanted to, this allowed the bulk of von Kluge's veteran army to escape the Gap intact. These German soldiers than later re-grouped and the Allies had to fight them all over again. . .

As to Patton starting a war with the Soviets - that is pure speculation.

However, let us speculate for a minute:

If Patton had cooked up some pretext for a fight with the Sovets, and if Stalin had attacked because of it, then that would only have indicated what may have been an intention on his (Stalin's) mind anyway. When Hitler was attacking the west in '39-40, Stalin was more than happy to see the western democracies fall, and did not in the slightest lift a hand to help, even when Britain, all alone, was being bombed in the BoB and the Blitz, and while U-boats sank tons of shipping. . .

Soon after WW2 was over, we entered the Cold War anyway.

So Patton was right again: He said that in a few short years we would be at war with Communism.

And sure enough, we did go to war with Communism. The Cold War led to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Berlin Blocade, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the massive arms build-up, etc. . .

[EricGuitarJames]

I thought you were probably referring to Ike. His greatest skill was 'man-management', and keeping Patton and Monty from tearing each other's throats out was quite an achievement.

I don't agree with your analysis of the Falaise pocket battle (although it's one of the major 'what ifs' of WW2). http://www.historynet.com/wwii/blfalaise/ has an interesting article on the last few days of that battle from a mainly Polish pov. Doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything but it's still a worthwhile read[:)]

Regarding 'Market-Garden', with hindsight it is very easy to see that the resources channeled there were wasted. But at the time it promised a swift end to the war in the West, and we must consider that the operation very nearly succeeded.

As regards Patton starting a 'hot war' with the Soviets, thank God he didn't. Western Europe would have been speaking Russian and honouring Lenin now. Other than that Patton was wrong, he seriously misread Stalins intentions and the Russian character.

[ShermanM4]

Hey Gentlemen,
being an American I am inclined to support Patton. Let us not forget, he was a great general, but he was not the greatest General. While Bradley's men were getting chewed up in the Hurtgen, and Hodges men were fighting building to building through the city of Aachen, Patton was sending regiment after regiment to its grave in a place called Metz. There was a series of fortresses the French had contructed around the city of Metz in the very last decade of the 19th century. It took Patton well over a month to crack these fifty year old fortresses and it did come at a cost of many American soldiers in the 3rd army. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the battle to quote an actual casualty list, or I wonder why he simply did not besiege them and just walk right around them. The fact is he had his shortcomings to. He perfromed admirably upon his first action at Averanches in Normany all the way to the Bulge in Belgium and beyond. I do not think General Montgommery should recieve so much criticism for what happened during Operation Market Garden. I think this was an uncharacteristically bold plan for him and it had the right objective. Perhaps, there were flaws all up and down the operation, and yes it nearly did succeed. I think we should focus on the fact that he dared to try it. He simply lost that time and that really does not matter. After all, the Allies still won the war did they not?

EricguitarJames, I have to agree with you. It would not have been wise to ever give Patton free reign in Europe.

[freeboy]

In Normandy, Rommel advocated attacking the beaches with panzer divisions immediately upon the Allied invasion. It would indeed be interesting to see what would have happened. With the German and Allied troops so close together fighting, the Allies would not have been able to use naval support, and even air-ground attack would have to have been done carefully[quote]
Well now.. I see only air and sea interdiction as saving the day that and 500 k men waiting to come to France from England...
On the beaches this would be true.. but those supplu lines around Beuex and carantan would have been pummulled... and does anyone think if dday was in trouble all those big bombers wouldn't have had new targets? I realize several hundred friendly fire kia resulted from carpet bombing.. but this would be my choice as Ike.. that and unleash third army had Rommel's tanks met the allies at the waters edge.... Remember for all practicle purposses there was no geran air power in france...

Rommell did what good tactical officers do.. made the best he could with what he had...

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

I thought you were probably referring to Ike. His greatest skill was 'man-management', and keeping Patton and Monty from tearing each other's throats out was quite an achievement.

I don't agree with your analysis of the Falaise pocket battle (although it's one of the major 'what ifs' of WW2). http://www.historynet.com/wwii/blfalaise/ has an interesting article on the last few days of that battle from a mainly Polish pov. Doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything but it's still a worthwhile read[:)]

Regarding 'Market-Garden', with hindsight it is very easy to see that the resources channeled there were wasted. But at the time it promised a swift end to the war in the West, and we must consider that the operation very nearly succeeded.

As regards Patton starting a 'hot war' with the Soviets, thank God he didn't. Western Europe would have been speaking Russian and honouring Lenin now. Other than that Patton was wrong, he seriously misread Stalins intentions and the Russian character.

As I mentioned, I am looking at things from Patton's point of view, having read several books about his life. Ike was indispensable for the role he played. But he was not a combat general as was Patton. Both were suited for the role they played.

Falaise Pocket: I am not sure how much clearer I can make this: Patton was ordered to halt. While the Canadian First Army (and the Polish 1st Armoured Division was a part of it) tried admirably to close the Gap, the Germans were fighting desperately to break out. Without Patton's aggressive drive to help close the Gap from the south, von Kluge managed to extricate more than 75,000 veteran soldiers from encirclement. The Allies would later have to re-fight these same soldiers again. This was all due to Allied High Command cautiousness.

Operation Market Garden: Patton had achieved a pattern of success. The Germans were withdrawing, and speed was of the essence. As most people know, Market Garden was hastily thrown together by a general (Monty) who was not known for planning these types of operations. The end result was the decimation of several elite airborne divisions.

Soviets and Stalin: Patton misread Stalin's intentions? How so? When Hitler attacked the west in 1939, Stalin gleefully watched as German armies over-ran all of western Europe. What did Stalin do? Did he help France or Britain? No sir. When he wasn't invading the Baltic States, Poland and Finland, Stalin was happily killing thousands of his own officers and sending millions of his own people to the Gulags.

And let us not forget the Katyn Massacre: Stalin's order of March 1940 to execute by shooting some 25,700 Poles (many of them officers), including those found at three sites, was disclosed with the collapse of Soviet Power. This particular Second World War slaughter of Poles is often referred to as the "Katyn Massacre" or the "Katyn Forest Massacre".

Poor "Uncle Joe". [:-] Truly a misunderstood megalomaniac.

After WW2, Stalin occupied Eastern Europe. Then Stalin fomented Communist insurgency in post WW2 Greece. Stalin then armed North Korea to the teeth, and we had a little three-year war there when North Korea attacked the south to begin the Korean War. Soviet and Chinese Communists started the Vietnam War. The Soviets sought to place offensive nuclear missiles into Cuba in 1962, which almost led to nuclear war. Stalin and later leaders interned millons of their own people in the Gulags. . .

Yup, Patton sure misread Stalin. . . [;)]

[Firefly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

After WW2, Stalin occupied Eastern Europe. Then Stalin fomented Communist insurgency in post WW2 Greece.

You really ought to learn the difference between history and propaganda. The Russians provided no support to the Greek Communists, which is why they lost the civil war, British and American support for the monarchists ensured that. The USA later engineered a military coup in Greece to overthrow a democratically elected conservative government.