So What's the Verdict on General Patton? - Did his Ingenuity Rise Above his Controversy in WW2?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2024
- In this video, we’re going to examine General George Patton and whether he was a good as history remembered, or if his many controversies overshadowed his success.
Buy us a KoFi to help support the channel & team! 🎭
•ko-fi.com/thefront
Check out some of the music we use in our videos!🎶
•bit.ly/RelaxJackYT
Join other history buffs on our Discord!📚
• / discord
🎬Video Credits:
Narrator - Cam
Editors - Kshitiz, Shantanu koli
Writer - Ashley
Researcher - Daniel
Intro music - / 16bitrecordsofficial
#TheFront #History
For business inquiries and to learn about our team check out our website🌐:
•frontiermediaco.com
Chapters
0:00 Introduction
0:32 Privileged Beginnings
1:42 First Taste of Combat and World War I
3:56 Northern Africa Campaign and the Invasion of Sicily
6:45 The Western Front
9:19 Conclusion
My great uncle Nick fought under Patton in Africa. His military career ended with a head injury after Anzio. While in military hospital he met my great aunt Sylvia and they went on to live over 40 years together. We fondly called him major Nick and he would tell his stories of what it was like to be a soldier in Patton's army. He had nothing but great respect! Rest in peace Nick
Anzio is the Italy campaign and it wasn't pretty, another one of Montgomerys/Churchills mistakes. US got the worst of it there.
@@rosiehawtrey You mean the US was unable to take over the campaign and grab all the credit-so instead trashed it.
Rosie Hawtree
Montgomery had nothing to do with Anzio. Montgomery was planning the successful invasion of Normandy at the time.
@@rosiehawtrey
Lol! It literally had nothing to do with Montgomery who was in Britain replanning D-Day and the strategy for Normandy.
More evidence that people simply don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to Montgomery.
Hopefully your uncle voted for Trump -- Parton's reincarnation
My grand father who was a medic under Patton during the battle of the bulge said a lot to me " I never did like that guy." He didn't talk about the war much. I learned he was part of the clean up crew the day after D-Day. That must have scared him seeing so much death.
Day after D day the beach was still under fire.. That would suck..
No leader is perfect but Patton was the perfect leader for the armored community. He loved his men, his men loved him. Even as a current Abrams tanker we still hold patton in high praise
That love existed just during combat operations. Out of that the feelings changed.
@@caniconcananas7687
Well he was a General afterall so that's not exactly the worst circumstance.
Why? When did he show any brilliance with armour?
He loved those that didn't go through Trauma
I crewed M60a1 tanks in 80 to 82. We studied his tactics.
I’d say he was loved and hated to a point. It does take a strong backbone to lead an army, but eventually one’s ego can get the best of them and they either learn from their actions or not, just my opinion.
Patton is complicated. There are two things that ought be pointed out, he didn’t sound like George C. Scott portrayed him in the movie, and so far as MHV has said, there’s no German documentation to support a great fear or respect for Patton. Patton thought a lot about leadership as a concept, and much of those ideas survive today even if they’re not attributed to Patton. His niece? might have said it best at his funeral, “it’s better for uncle Georgie like this, he wouldn’t understand peace.” Or words to that effect. He belongs in a glass case that says “in case of war, break glass.”
And nor did Montgomery have an issue with Patton. He never said or wrote a bad word about Patton and even hoped his soldier slapping escapades could be kept quiet.
Montgomery even said to Eisenhower in the Ardennes that he should get Patton to advance to Bastogne, not knowing that Eisenhower had already thought of that.
Patton had a problem with Montgomery, but the reverse was not true.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Ike never thought of anything, the man was a good politician, but an absolute shitty general with zero tactical or strategic competence. It was Patton who thought up how to relieve Bastogne, not Ike, he told Ike he could do it and Ike laughed at him thinking it impossible to move an entire Army group 180 degrees, march over 100 miles, and engage the enemy in time. Patton not only did it, he also won and drove the German troops back across the Rhine. Ike should have been court marshalled IMO, first of reliving Patton in Sicily, and then for ignoring him in the Falaise Gap.
@@tedwojtasik8781
Yes Eisenhower was an excellent man manager and politician and should have just remained as Supreme Commander, and not also taken over command of ground strategy from Montgomery in September 1944. Under Montgomery in command of all ground forces the allies did extremely well, moving 600km from the Normandy beaches to Belgium etc in just 3 months, which was ahead of schedule. When Eisenhower took over in September, the allied advance then stalled and barely moved 100km for the next 6 months, due to Eisenhower insisting of a dispersed broad from. Instead of smashing down the door into Germany in one concentrated punch, he instead decided to knock on the door everywhere, the result of which the Germans were able to hold at bay.
Montgomery argued for a concentrated northern thrust with 40 divisions in 4 armies, which would have included Patton's 3rd Army as well as US 1st Army, British 2nd Army and Canadian 1st Army. Eisenhower insisted on the broad front instead, which was far more difficult to supply and maintain and it weakened the attacking power.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Monty accused Patton of stealing supplies in Northern France and intruded on Patton's zone of command in Sicily.
According to Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Patton. He lived for the action of the battlefield. He was a tactical genius who understood war strategy on a deep level. But during peace time he suffered from depression. It was if he was born to be a warrior without fear. Even Adolf Hitler himself and his third reich would not dare send their forces anywhere near Patton and his men. Hitler's #1 priority was to avoid Patton and his army at all cost.
He understood the value of the stage but if you really want to know Patton, read Patton’s Leadership Principles and it’s a eye opener to his learning disabilities and how he overcame them as well as his common sense approach to leadership
Patton was the pinnacle of the man you had to respect, but not necessarily like.
He’s the guy you would follow, not because you loved him, but because he always knew what the hell he was doing.
Cream always appears at the top Patton was not quite there.
@@jacktattisdross ends up on top as well. It's not always just cream that rises to the top
@@mageckman My friend there were better than Patton Is that plain enough
@@jacktattis I agree. I am not saying that Patton is the end all be all of World War 2 generals .I was merely saying that crap floats to the top as well. Montgomery being my case in point.
@@mageckman Yes many people did not like Monty. However at one point he Commanded 2 US armies as well as his own 20th Army Group which Patton never done. Hodges did not like it but I think it was Simpkins who got on well with Montgomery
Just think of it a arrogant Limey General in charge of two US Armies
Unheard of however Eisenhower did it
About 20 years ago, I was on a cruise and assigned to a dinner table with an older couple. The man, a great guy, was a Jewish man from NY City, and had been in WW II and was at Kasserine Pass, where he said the "Germans kicked the hell out of us." He said they "lured us up into these canyons and tore us to pieces. If it was a football game we lost 50 - 0." Being a student of WW II, I asked if his commander was Lloyd Friedendall. He was stunned and asked how I knew that. He claimed that Friedendall was a friend of George Marshall and lived in an underground bunker 50 miles away from the front lines and was a poor general. Friedendall was fired after Kasserine and Patton was his replacement. He told me that there was an instant culture change. He said they were up at 5:00 a.m. and trained every day like maniacs well past dark. He said Patton went out of his way to meet every soldier, drilled with his men, would show up out of the blue and sleep in fox holes with privates and promised his men, that he would be on the front lines with them at all times. He said they regained their confidence and then fought very well and Patton was relentless in their training and they came to adore him. He was involved in the invasion of Sicily and then fought in Italy where he was wounded. He said that being Jewish he deeply feared being captured by the Germans. He told me Patton was a rare leader of great charisma and that it's hard to explain the incredible effect he had on a demoralized army.
Pretty much my uncles view of Patton. My maternal family, biased by media coverage of Patton were quite shocked by my Uncles adoration of Patton!
I think his ego got in his way. The idea of treating all soldiers, even the lowest enlisted, with respect was and still important to the US military. The fact is that his temper and disregard for authority hurt him
What would your example of ego being what hurt Patton be though? I don't think it is ego that caused him to slap those 2 men. It was his temper and respect he had for soldiers that caused that to happen. Patton was in tears when he slapped those men because he was so upset that what he thought were men being cowards to avoid fighting made up their condition and was a slap to the other men he just spent hours talking to who all had physical injuries. We have to remember this was the 40's when Patton slapped them and Patton himself was born back in 1906. He and many other people (I'd say the majority of people) had the same opinion as Patton did back then when he slapped those men. They didn't know about PTST back then and even shell shock was a condition viewed much differently. Those men he slapped didn't encounter a situation where it was believed someone would get shell shock. It was thought shell shock would happen to men hit for long periods of time by artillery.
And partially in Patton's defense of the slapping incidents, 1 of those men he slapped could have been faking his condition to avoid combat. One of the men he slapped had not seen any combat and didn't see anyone get killed or injured in front of him. That man was a truck driver (there is nothing wrong with that, logistics troops are very valuable and have a job as important as most other jobs) and was taking a break when another unit was moving to the front line and a officer told that solider Patton would later slap to come with them to the front since he was not doing anything at that moment (people have said that solider was making jokes to the officers troops as they went to the front which is another reason the officer told the solider to come with them to the front) and that solider refused to go to the front saying that wasn't his job, I am a supply trooper and things like that. So that officer sent the solider to the field hospital since he was refusing to fight. The other man Patton slapped had seen combat and men being injured/killed.
Patton was known for treating his soldiers with respect apart from the slapping incidents. Those slapping incidents actually made Patton even more liked by his troops later in the war when in command of the 3rd Army. Because as I was saying back then it would have been thought those soldiers were faking their conditions to avoid fighting at the front. It is often mis-understood by many historians that enlisted troops liked Bradly but not Patton when it was actually the other way around. Patton's troops loved him because he spent so much time at the front and talking to all of his men in normal conversations no matter what their rank was and he would ask them things they thought was working and not working. While Bradly who was a very good general and a master at logistics very rarely would go to the front to talk to the enlisted men (he was of course an Army group commander which resulted in Bradly not going to the front often just like the other Army Group commanders Montgomery, Devers and Clark).
Lastly that Army that Patton led at the end of WW2, the US 3rd Army was by far the largest single Army of WW2 out of all countries making up 18 US divisions (much larger then Soviet or German divisions) Patton's one single army was larger then the Army Group that Montgomery was leading (Montgomery had 2 armies under his command at the end of WW2, 1 British and the one Canadian army). Patton was given the command of the largest army of WW2 not only because he had proven himself an excellent field commander but also because he was obeying his commands despite your comment about him not obeying authority (no fault on you for thinking that as it is a common opinion). But Patton did in reality actually follow his superiors commands. For example in Sicily Patton didn't just go off on his own making his out flanking move. Patton asked the Army Group commander in charge of Sicily for the Allies, Harold Alexander and Alexander agreed with the idea and gave his go ahead on it after Patton asked. Patton was an army commander through and through and was brought up in military life and knew the importance of obeying direct commands given to junior officers. Patton knew what he was allowed to do on his own as an Army commander and what kinds of things he would need to ask for permission to do with his superiors .
@@PhillyPhanVinny Patton commanded 200,000 men Monty commanded 1 million.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That is only if you are counting the air-force and logistics troops Montgomery also had under his command due to being an Army Group commander (a logistics heavy job). At the end of WW2 both Montgomery and Patton had the same number of divisions under their command (18). That is what I was comparing. Patton didn't have command of an air-force or the logistics forces supplying him apart from the in-division logistics which Montgomery's divisions had also. Omar Bradley, the command of the US 12th army group and had command of the logistics forces in his area of the front line like Montgomery did north of him in the 21st army group. Omar Bradley though didn't have command of the US air-forces in Western Europe like Montgomery did over the British and Canadian air-forces. The US air-force in Western Europe answered to Eisenhower. So even though Bradley had command of 4 US armies (47 divisions) compared to Montgomery's 2 armies (18 divisions), Bradley still only had command of 200,000 more men then Montgomery because the air-force under Montgomery's official command was massive (as was the US air-force in Western Europe).
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- And did a great job too, but he made mistakes- bad ones- as well. We all do.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Monty and Patton had egos bigger then the whole German general staff.
Patton was controversial and also kind of overrated, but he was also a master of his craft when it came to exploitation and maneuver warfare, as he demonstrated at Sicily, during the Normandy breakout, in the Ardennes, and after bouncing the Rhine. His weakness was static warfare, which may be indicative of the Cavalry vs Infantry schools.
@RedAUG I think their were other US generals who were just as capable like Collins, Ridgeway and Devers.
Courtney Hodges who was 1st Army Command I believe was either Artillery or Coastal Artillery, so different combat styles. Hodges doesn't get discussed but he was responsible for the Hurtgen Forrest operation. Which was a meat grinder campaign that ended up meaning nothing. Patton gets heat for Metz, and Helidelburg Raid as well.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Collins and Ridgeway were Corps Commanders, and Devers was an Army Group Commander, both positions above and below Patton. So, their operational positions are indirect comparisons. Also, Ridgeway commanded an Airborne Corps with different combat styles and missions altogether. The people to compare Patton with are General Hodges, General Simpson, and General Patch, the commanders of the US 1st, 9th, and 7th Armies in Europe.
@@ThumperE23 Other underrated corps commanders are Richard O Connor, Pip Roberts and Miles Dempsey.
He had a limited but important skill: operational pursuit and he may have done it better than anyone else ever has.
In my opinion Patton was very tactical but wouldn’t stop till his plans fell through even if throwing men and tanks at the enemy meant reaching his goals
When did he ever do anything like that?
@@paulbabcock2428 The Siege of Metz in the fall of 1944; Patton was dead-set on taking the city and fortress, but if he’d gone around it, would’ve been faster and more efficient all-round
I wouldn't agree with that characterization of Patton. Patton didn't suffer any defats of significance. By the end of WW2 Patton's 3rd army was the largest Army of WW2 out of any country making up 18 US divisions (US divisions were among the largest of the war with only British divisions in general being larger. US divisions were also the closest to their paper strength of any nation in WW2) and with the largest army of WW2 he also had by far the highest kill to death ratio (including casualties so injured and captured troops that the 3rd army suffered and injured and captured of the Germans). So that is why I wouldn't agree with your characterization of Patton in your comment. Since Patton was not just throwing men to their deaths. Even when he was attacking hard to take positions he was doing so while other units under his command were advancing on the flanks allowing Patton to surround the Axis troops over and over again.
@@bruenor316 As I was saying in my reply to the OP Patton was not ever just sending men to their deaths with a front on attack for no reason. He was still sending his divisions forward and around Axis positions repeatedly surrounding Axis units over and over again all through his time in WW2. Patton's' 3rd army had by far the highest ratio of killed, injured and captured caused compared to his own men's casualties. All Army commanders of WW2 who had command for any significant period of time and wasn't just on the defense the whole time had to launch attacks against well defended positions like Metz. It was just part of the war. I'll make an example using Montgomery (since that is who Patton has been compared to since even before WW2 ended) and Montgomery launched attacks against dug-in Axis positions as well.
The largest mistake the Western Allies had against the Germans in WW2 was not Market Garden but the failure to take the Scheldt Estuary of Antwerp (the failure to take it is what caused Market Garden to happen). Despite Montgomery being told countless times by so many officers in both the US and British militaries of it's importance including by Eisenhower and Bertram Ramsey (the man most important for the Western allied plans of what to do during D-Day and after) Montgomery still ignored those warnings that he needed to take the Estuary (he blamed not taking it on the Canadians). Since the Estuary was not taken the Allies could still not use the vital port of Antwerp. Without that port the allies could only bring in enough supplies for 1 army to make an offensive which is what led to Market Garden happening. After Market Garden failed though Montgomery was ordered to complete his original orders to take the Scheldt Estuary. But because Montgomery didn't take those islands when he was supposed to the Germans had gotten troops onto them and dug in on them. This forced Montgomery to make some of the most heroic and deadly single day attacks of WW2. Montgomery led those attacks with the Canadians with the British taking some of the smaller islands and those attacks were forced front on attacks via beach landings right into German positions. Those islands were of such importance because without them Allied ships could not go in to dock at Antwerp. The allies would take them after suffering major casualties. The taking of those islands allowed Eisenhower to supply all 3 of his Army Groups in France with enough supplies to attack with all 3. This then led to the Allies being able to break into Germany in multiple directions. Prior to getting access to use Antwerp as a harbor the only harbors the allies could use were the D-Day landing beaches and Cherbourg . Antwerp was the largest and most important port of Western Europe (probably all of Europe and maybe even the world) and the Germans could not block it off like they did with other harbors because of how deep the water in the harbor was. But if the Germans controlled those islands it would prevent any ship from getting to Antwerp (looking at a map of the Estuary makes this much easier to understand).
And all the other Western allied army group and army commanders had to make attacks on positions the Axis were dug into as well. Europe is not like the Pacific where you can avoid many battles. The allies could do that with ports because even before D-Day the plan was to just use the D-Day beaches and Cherbourg until they could take Antwerp and then with Antwerp they could bring all their supplies for all 8 Armies (5 American, 1 British, 1 Canadian and 1 French army) in Western Europe under Eisenhower's command. That is how big and important Antwerp was. But for inland positions the Allies had to often attack Axis forces dug into cities. The Soviets had been doing it from Stalingrad onwards. So Patton attacking Axis forces in a city should just be thought of as normal. And at the same time Patton was attacking Metz he was still advancing his massive 3rd Army all over Europe in the territory of his front. But Metz was a vital transportation position had had to eventually be taken to allow enough trains to run through Patton's positions to keep up the supply of his Army.
@@PhillyPhanVinny Remarkable comment. Simply impressive analysis. I'd be surprised to think it came from an amateur historian. I had a sneaking suspicion that the reason Market Garden happened was a prior strategic failure rather than Montgomery's possible (not yet confirmed) autism and his stubbornness in the face of the recommendations.
In a one word answer: "Yes."
If Patton were around today, his nickname might be "It's Complicated" rather than "Blood and Guts."
He would never have made general in today's Army. In fact he was almost at mandatory retirement age as a Col. when the War intervened.
You forgot the part where he sent a single battalion behind German lines in April 1945 to free his son in law from a pow camp and the whole thing was a disaster. Most of the men were killed or captured and they didn’t even save his son in law. He should never have used his command to achieve personal goals that ran contrary to the real war strategy.
His entire WW2 career was using his command to achieve personal goals that ran contrary to strategy. Sicily - runs off to Palermo for the photo op, leaving Monty's flank open, and allowing 100,000 enemy troops and equipment to escape to the mainland. Metz, knows that it should be bypassed, but also knows that no-one since Attila has taken it, so wastes three months and thousands of lives for it. Glory hungry, self promoting rich arsehole.
That's often a forgotten thing about him but that was hardly his only bad moment. Think about Metz and in Africa too he was checked.
@@Emil.Fontanot He was temporarily checked but he did overcome both. You can argue he was a tactical and strategic nitwit at both by the use of too direct concentrated force under those circumstance. I agree, but both were a result of Patton's overconfidence after having won several battles prior which was, IMO his biggest and most problematic attribute. Patton believed, especially in Metz, that the Germans would fall back after a short skirmish and abandon the town(s). If Patton had not been so arrogant in those instances to the point of ignoring his own #1 rule (never ignore your intel). Regarding his only real loss of the war, his attempted liberation of a POW camp, that was another WTF and completely out of character blunder even a rookie likely would not have made. Honestly, that one is a real head scratcher. Why he sent such an outrageously small detachment to liberate a well fortified and equipped POW camp defies understanding.
@@tedwojtasik8781 his overconfidence was based on nothing. The only battles he fought before the campaigns in France was the Battle of El Guettar(an indecisive battle at best) and the Sicilian campaign, in which he barely met any opposition and still failed to stop the Axis evacuation.
@@Emil.Fontanot When it comes down to it, Pattons best feat of the war was the turning of the Third army 100 miles to Bastogne.
He was definitely brave and smart but a hard ass nonetheless, which you have to be in war. In WW1 he crawled through No Mans Land and mapped the best route for his tanks to take before an assault, he’s a major badass who you have to respect
Source ??
Murdered one of his own men in WWI. What a great guy!🤡
Only in his own mind
@@hughzapretti-boyden9187 You just going to keep commenting that everywhere? Maybe expand on that a little bit more
Jesus wept he was only in WW1 AT THE VERY END
I have spoken with Vets who served with him, it was either love or hate, did not matter what rank they were
It seems like the ones that loved him were never directly under him. The more I Iearn about him, the more I think he is severely overrated, and I think a lot of the key victories he had as he climbed the ranks were "easy" wins.
He saved lives with his standing order to always attack. Keep the enemy off balance so they don't have a chance to dig in to form a defense. Unquestionably the best Allied field commander of WWII. I had 2 great uncles who served in the 3rd army and they had nothing but good things to say about their commanding General.
He was capable but certainly not your best, otherwise Marshall and the Chiefs would have promoted him above Bradley And we had Lt Generals that were as good if not better Morshead , Lumsden, Horrocks, Dempsey , Andersen [who by the way was the man that got Patton out of a hot spot El Guerre ]. Patton had great propaganda that kept him n the limelight back home He had great Charisma
@@jacktattis After the slapping incident and several gaffe's in the press, Patton was never going to reach the upper echelon as those US Generals with political skills. But Ike and Marshall sure respected his skills as a pure field commander when they could have easily sent him home several times. He brought victories to the US at a time when they were badly needed in North Africa and Sicily. Performed with distinction in the ETO. And will be remembered in history for all time. Not too shabby for an old horse soldier.
@@jameslonano5659 North Africa ?????? He did not take over until the end of the debacle that was at the Kasserine Pass. The German Army was in full retreat. Andersen aided Patton at El Guerre and the result was a draw not a defeat.
@@jameslonano5659 .North Africa Patton's performance was poor hence his secondary role in Sicily. Sicily he was sacked
@@garythomas3219 I think that was the POW executions that caused it.
I briefly worked for his son who was deputy commander of 7th Corps in West Germany. He was as I imagined his father was. I got a long with him well.
you would have to say both. he was great at fast moving armored forces, but not so well at slower, set piece type battles. the 7th army did not really get a chance to learn that his fast moving tactics often saved more lives than they cost. 3rd army had a chance to learn this and they respected and even loved him, because he gave them a better chance of going home than many other generals.
3rd had higher casualties than any other
@Ken, 3d Army also killed, captured more Axis solders, took more territory, Patton's tactics shortened the war and saved thousands of lives. Like him or not he was the best Army Gen. of WWII
@Ken, 3d Army also killed, captured more Axis solders, took more territory, Patton's tactics shortened the war and saved thousands of lives. Like him or not he was the best Army Gen. of WWII
@@rogerbean6963 how did Patton headbutting the walls of Metz help to shorten the war? How did running off to Palermo and allowing 100,000 enemy troops escape from Sicily help to shorten the war? How did Task Force Baum help to shorten the war? How did failing to take objectives in Tunisia shorten the war? How did shooting donkeys shorten the war? How did covering up a massacre shorten the war?
@@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85 Maybe Ike should have given more of the gas to the 3rd. than to 1st. that was charged with supporting Monty's Market Garden pipe dream so the 3rd. can take Metz earlier and with little to no resistance?
I imagine he was good to some, bad to others . His 3 month Metz Lorraine Campaign has been revisited and is not considered a great Campaign these days Hodges Devers were plodders but achieved as much on their Fronts in a shorter time
He was using Metz to blood green troops. It was not a failure of leadership. There is a reason 3rd Army had the lowest casualty rat of any US Army in the ETO!
@@ethanperks372 Im pretty sure Devers had the least casualties
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I wouldn't argue! I remember a response to a statement condemning Patton as a butcher. It stated thar the only Commander with a lower casualty rate than Patton was MacArthur. Further, Devers rarely had direct command of troops. After D-Day he commanded 6th Army Group. As such he was in overall command of the landings in Southern France. Eventually commanding 7th Army and the French First Army. So one cannot compare casualties between an Army and an Army Group. I do feel Devers was a progressive officer. Had Ike listened to him more IMO US casualties would have been less than they were
my uncle served as an MP in Patton's army & said they really liked and respected him; never knew when he would turn the corner on you, lol.
I remember the book by Winterbotham (the Ultra Secret).
The author praised Patton’s very effective use of Ultra intelligence.
I'd say he was a man of his time.... and no man exists without faults! R I P General.
5:58 Guess being struck by sickness is a no-no to General Patton
He believed battle fatigue or PTSD was a sign of cowardice
He violently assaulted two private soldiers who were patients in military hospitals, screaming obscenities. What a brave general!
@@renard801 He was a traditional General that way. Way back when corporal punishment was an acceptable method of disciplining troops who conducted themselves badly.
@@markgarrett3647 The first man had malaria and a dangerously high temperature of 102. The other had shell-shock, a medically recognised condition since WWI. How is that "conducting themselves badly"?
Corporal punishment wasn't acceptable in 1943. Neither was a general literally kicking a sick soldier out of a hospital, or pulling his gun on another and threatening to shoot him, on both occasions screaming obscenities.
Acceptable? Eisenhower and Marshall were incensed. Ike wrote Patton that he deserved to be broken, and would have been in peacetime. Even the respected veteran Pershing condemned Patton's conduct.
Officers do not maintain discipline or command respect by assaulting private soldiers.
@@billbrandley5839 More to the point, Patton said, "Shell shock is an invention of the Jews." Another indication of the man's character!
Sadly this video is so wrong I do not have the stamina to write the essay needed to correct this collection of myths. Nevertheless some pointers. First Patton was neither feared nor even really known to the German's who feared Montgomery far more in 1944. Secondly those who despised Patton the most were the two American Commanders he fought with, General Bradley and Eisenhower who were far more pissed off that Patton took Palermo leaving Bradley's Western flank exposed in Sicily and thus failing to trap the Elite German paratroop formations who were able to escape back to Italy unscathed.
Also it was Montgomery, ironically, who insisted on Patton for 3rd Army commander. Despite their rivalry they both respected each other in their own way. Monty saw Patton as the needed 'pusher' to do the breakout even if his low opinion of Pattons grasp of logistics and strategy was proven correct. In his own diary in 1942, Patton recorded his real impression of Montgomery as 'wonderfully conceited and the first competent British Commander I have met in this war. He is a man and he knows his stuff'. Not the same as his public statements but fascinating nevertheless.
The film 'Patton' is very honest and far more realistic than this 'documentary' which focuses on myths not insight! My favorite scene is the one where Patton waits for Monty's arrival after getting to Messina first. Wonderfully humorous and honest as Monty teased Patton about having shaved that morning, hoping for a kiss, just to tease Patton. It is clear they enjoyed the rivalry and could joke with each other. Reality is far more interesting than politically motivated myths! It is too bad and pathetic that politics informs most opinions on Patton and Montgomery, not actual historical curiosity!
He was one hell of a leader of men on the battle field!
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Most great field commanders run afoul of their superiors from time to time for following their instincts over orders. If they are successful it can usually be forgiven. They have an acute sense of the enemy's moral and abilities to punish overly aggressive actions and will strike them hard at the correct moment. I'm sure this behavior drives the high command crazy, but you can't force exceptional people to be mediocre any more than you can force mediocre people to be exceptional.
Victor Davis Hanson has a lecture on YT about Patton. He gave three examples of when higher command should've listened to Patton, but didn't.
An example was the "relief of Bastogne". Patton argued that the smart play was not to drive to Bastogne and punch through to rescue the defenders. The smart play was to go in behind the Germans, encircle and cut off their supply lines. That would've taken thousands of Germans and their equipment out of the war permanently. But he was overruled.
My neighbor marched under Patton he didn't like him at all. Thought he was a glory chaser that didn't care about his own mens welfare. Said all of the men in his unit hated him and they'd take pop shots at his jeep. Patton always thought it was the Germans. Said he'll never forget how cold his feet would get when they get done fighting one battle and he rushed to another front. 100 mi away and they force March guys would lose their feet.
I'm an old Army veteran. Despite differences between Patton and Montgomery, they were very similar. Both were very full of themselves, but they had successes and failures. The fact that they were with the soldiers and respected by them, makes for good leadership. But there were better commanders than them, who weren't trying to glorify themselves
@camrenwick Yeah Bill Slim and Lucian Truscott were decent generals.
Fun fact: During WW1, future President Truman was in an artillery regiment that supported Pattons tanks during a battle but the two wouldn't meet until after the war was over. Another fun fact, Truman's eyesight was poor enough to deny him service, so to get in he memorized the eye sight test and fooled his recruiters.
You forgot to mention Patton murdered one of his own men in WWI.
He also understood that the next enemy would be the Soviets so despite fighting so hard against the Germans he knew who was the real enemy.
The Nazis were the real enemy, the Soviets being next on the list doesn’t change that fact.
The whole War started because Hitler violated Poland's sovereignty and yet the tragic irony about the end of the war is that we allowed Stalin to keep what we told Hitler he could not have.
So the Nazis weren’t the real enemy?
Our next enemy is the Chinese.
@@NostalgicGamerRickOShayIt leads to questions about what other factors led to the war and its continuation.
My father was in 3rd army recon. He was a decorated hero and also wounded in battle. His outfit had over a 90% casualty rate by the way. From what I gathered they were able to inflict many more casualites then they suffered although he didn't like to talk about that. Instead he would mostly mention the prisoners they took. I remember him using the line his guts and our blood but he liked Patton and was proud to serve under him. Look at Patton's results for the answer to your question. Probably the most successful general in American history. Some of the things 3rd army did other generals thought were impossible.
I think he was the man you wanted to win you a fight… it’s not the size dog 🐕 in a fight but the size of the fight in a dog… but George s Patton was no politician and his ego meant he even fought his friends and allies. Bradley and Eisenhower tried to help but he struggled to help himself
He's a bit like one of those Rockstar's who died before they made any truly awful albums. It would be interesting to see if his reputation would be the same today had he stuck around and pissed everyone off for another 20-30 odd years after the war.
He was great in combat, but thinking that the US shouldn't have stopped Hitler was idiotic. Nazis were clearly terrible but he somehow missed that.
He didn't miss that. He was an anti-Semitic rich boy, from a Confederate background. Of course he sympathised with racist rich pricks in grey uniforms!
Sigh. Not what he said. Removing every Nazi party member from government or civil service was unworkable is what he said and he was right. Because like it or not, almost every single person in Germany was a member by that point, practically by law. A famous example was Wernher Freiherr von Braun - you might remember him - latterly ran NASA. Nazi Assisted Space Americans.
Sigh. Not what he said. Removing every Nazi party member from government or civil service was unworkable is what he said and he was right. Because like it or not, almost every single person in Germany was a member by that point, practically by law. A famous example was Wernher Freiherr von Braun - you might remember him - latterly ran NASA. Nazi Assisted Space Americans.
Your referring to the quote were he said "we marched on the wrong foe" right?"
Depends how I interpreted the quote was after arriving Germany he wished we'd make am agreement for a single germany (rather then split) to exist after the war, if they marched with the west.
If that Germany was made to be democratic, maybe wouldn't have been bad, but that's completely unrealistic.
maybe we could have came to agreement were if hitler stepped down or something we'd allow the nazi party power.
Course good luck convincing the soliders and public to go on board with this.
Patton was detached from reality if he thought these interpretations.
Still to be fair he didn't live to long after the war, not long enough to have complete idea of reality.
@@swampdonkey1567 well, that and the outright anti semitism present in conversation with journalists, letters to friends, etc. I can't link to it, but look up his letter to Charles Rodman where he calls Jewish people "sub-human".
He was fine in operations requiring drive, energy and aggression, but failed badly when a tactical approach was required. It's interesting you fail to mention the battle of Metz, and Patton's attempt to capture Fort Driant. He charged the objective like a bull at a gate and got badly mauled, despite Omar Bradley's advice to simply bypass the fort and leave it to wither on the vine.
Or Ike and Bradley could have just supplied Patton's command enough of the fuel it needed earlier so it can take Metz with much less resistance than they did?
@@markgarrett3647 Or listened to Bradleys advice on bypassing Metz instead?
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- You forgot how the fuel situations still tenuous for the 3rd Army even after they received enough of their fuel to get moving again and how Metz being secured would really ease that situation.
Besides that Patton's orders were to after all consolidate the Allied hold on Moselle river and Lorraine valley.
"Fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity", said Patton. Then spent three months proving himself correct at Metz!
@@markgarrett3647 It’s myth that any petrol was taken from Patton for Montgomery. Patton was already at a standstill before planning for Market Garden even started.
Patton finally began receiving adequate supplies on September 4, (two weeks before MG) after a week’s excruciating pause”
- Harry Yeide
Market Garden only had priority in extra supply transport laid on. It didn’t take away any actual supplies from any US army. Nor did Market Garden stop all operations on the western front. Patton’s 3rd Army was still trying to take Metz and US 1st Army began its Hurtgen Forest campaign on September 19th, 2 days after Market Garden began.
Did you know that the twin pronged US 1st Army attack in the Hurtgen Forest and Aachen in October 1944 used FOUR TIMES as many men and supplies as the ground element of Market Garden, which wasn’t even a full 2nd British Army attack?
“ It was commonly believed at Third Army H.Q. that Montgomery's advance through Belgium was largely maintained by supplies diverted from Patton. (See Butcher, op. cit., p. 667.) This is not true. The amount delivered by the ' air-lift ' was sufficient to maintain only one division. No road transport was diverted to aid Montgomery until September 16th. On the other hand, three British transport companies, lent to the Americans on August 6th " for eight days," were not returned until September 4th.' “
- CHESTER WILMOT
THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE. 1954
P 589
Patton established the first tank school during WWI. After he was wounded in combat, he didn't sit out the war, as he was shot in the gluteus maximus. The German regard for Patton is much overstated. Their High Command didn't pay much attention to him until after D-Day.
Great men aren't always good people.
Every historical figure should be taken for what they were: Patton, Montgomery, Rommel... brilliant tacticians with their lights and shadows.
Being a military veteran and a person that admires history. I believe General Patton, was the leader that was needed at that time. He was the best leader that they could have during World War II ,and he was put in history at the right moment he was needed. outside of that moment he was not the greatest, but during that moment he was the best person for the job.
Some of this is BS.
1) Harry Yeide went into the German archives and discovered that the majority of the German Generals had never even heard of Patton.
2) Patton was not regarded as a great leader. However, he was recognized for being very strong in pursuit/rolling fights. Thomas E Rick's has some good info on this
My dad was a Master Sgt. with the 4th armored. He told me that we thought he was crazy but right. We would have followed him to Moscow.
I meet 1 person that fought in 3rd armor. Said they respected being able to push because they could go home faster.
Fought against weakened Germam army. Suffered delusions of grandeur. Was j envious of the Soviet army's acheivements.
A war lover, combat-eager general. Patton and his Third Army made many notable breakthroughs in the European theater. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal because of his brave movement and heroic progress during the Battle of Bulge.
It was Bradley that made the breakthrough in France ( Operation Cobra), not Patton. And the US 1st army a long with the 101st air borne had already beat off the German attacks during the Bulge before Patton had even showed up.
Just as arrogant as Monty - not quite as skilled and a lot more touchy
Jesus I don’t even know many Brits who would say that. Ike didn’t care for either very much. Patton was more effective in the field though.
@@matthewgabbard6415 Hard to measure such effectiveness in an objective way. Esp as Patton was two ranks below Monty and so had different responsibilities. I'm not sure that Patton could have pulled off the largest, most complex invasion in history like Monty did.
@@matthewgabbard6415 I prefer Truscott.
Even Joseph Stalin was apparently an admirer of Patton, stating that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton's rapid armored advance across France
Rapid.... advance? xD You mean that hell full of casualties, delays and frustration that the battle of Normandy was? lol
@@julenmarcossantamaria2762 Normandy was and still is the biggest naval invasion in history it’s surprising it even succeeded in the first place
@@spiritorange8325 Correct, and it was about to fail in several moments. Montgomery and Eisenhower were about to abort it mid operation several times. But yes, it succeded, in part because it hit one of the weakest parts of France coast. But again, no merit taken away, it succeeded for sure.
But that doesnt have to do with what I said at all. The battle of Normandy was hell for the allies and it wasnt "rapid" at all, as this guy said.
@@julenmarcossantamaria2762 It was somewhat fast but definitely not rapid.
I find this hard to believe, since the Red army had in operation Bagration under the command of General Rokossovsky from 22 June to 25 July 1944 had advanced from east of Minsk in Belarus all the way to the Vistula River outside Warsaw, over 650 km, and practically crushed army group center some of the best trained and equipped German forces available at the time. Meanwhile the German forces the 3rd Army went up against were primarily security units made of disabled or poorly trained troops and a German tank division with only 14 tanks. Its easy to advance rapidly when there is little opposition. He did help out with the Falaise pocket which was able to eliminate a significant amount of German equipment. I do think though that most of the German soldiers were able to escape that encirclement though.
My Father was in WW2. He said Patton nickname was " Blood and Guts".
"old blood and guts"
But they added, "Sure, his guts, our blood."
Patton and MacArthur were the best. When World War 2 started up, Generals and Colonels over the age of 50 were put into retirement. Patton was an exception. No one knew as much as he did about tank warfare and he was promoted to General and later took command in Africa because of incompetence on the part of Frendendall. When Patton was relived in Italy, the Generals who took over his his command in Italy made a lot of mistakes that he never would have made. It cost lives. Patton had a perfect record and he was relieved of command at very crucial time in Italy . A lot of it had to do with jealousy of other Generals. Secretary of War Simpson kept him on. MacArthur was so important he was brought back on active duty and out of retirement at age 60. MacArthur was not for the head on invasion. He would cut off the enemies life line. "Let em starve & let em die. Better them than us." He later saved the day in North Korea which did not look good. For that he was relieved. Both of their fathers were Generals. Patton's father was a Colonel before he was old enough to vote in the civil war.
I believe that, like all people. General Patton was both good and bad. My father and 4 of his 6 brothers fought in WWII. His youngest brother was killed 3/9/1945 in Belgium. His other brother saw action in N. Africa. Becoming a recluse after the war and dying before age 40. While I'm strongly opposed to many of Patton's actions and beliefs. I believe that in total he was more of a benefit than a detriment to US forces in the war. My favorite Patton quote was, while inspecting troops at attention, a young soldier looking to impress the general said, "I'm prepared to die for my country sir." Patton was said to have replied, "Son, nobody ever won a war by dying for their country. You make the other dumb son of a bitch die for his." Sometimes you need that attitude in war. Thanks for the great posting as usual.
My grandfather despised Patton, even more after he assaulted those soldiers in the hospital suffering from shell shock (PTSD as we now call it). He considered Patton a big bully who should never had the chance to lead.
He said in his biography that he always took a jeep to the front as a morale booster though he usually flew back from the front to his rear headquarters.
My Father was in the Army for 17 years. He was a master sgt in charge of kitchens & a great cook. Generals asked for him.
He served in the Philippines, was bombed. Pearl Harbor, was in the invasion of North Africa, Sicily, D Day, the Battle of the Bulge in 3rd Army, Bavarian Occupation, Korea 1950-1952. Recalled during the Cuban Missle Crisis.
He loved General Patton.
3:42 Murphy: "Poor choice of words."
My Great Grandpa served under him in the 3rd Army
Montgomery: "We need a plan of attack!"
Patton: "I have a plan: attack!"
Except Patton's attack got nowhere in the Lorraine for 4 months.
And which one would be accepted as a modern General ?
Monty: My plan would give us victory after a minimum time of 6 months and maximum of 12 months and involves lots and lots of carpet bombing and complex artillery barrages.
Monty I think had been scarred by his experience of the carnage of the First World War as a junior officer. Tactics then involved frontal assaults on heavily defended positions or alternatively subbornly resisting attacks by the Germans and facing the hell of heavy artillery bombardment. Monty had also been seriously wounded in that conflict. He was determined unlike Patton to try to minimise soldier deaths and casualties rather like military doctrine today.
Short answer: yes.
For a longer, in depth explanation and context, read "Patton: A genius for war". The best biography I've read about the man.
Except that he was no genius.
Taken from Patton's own diary's, highly embellished
Keep up the good work
While his faults were legion, he was the consummate battle commander. My uncle Herman served in 3rd Army and loved him. There was also considerable jealousy from other generals. Patton was a genuine battle hero. Two DSC's, two Silver Stars and numerous Foreign decorations. Ike/Bradley and Marshal never heard a shot fired in anger! PS: The infamous slapping incident, The soldier in question was concussed by an artillery shell. All the other men with him were killed by that shell!
Admire the soldier, consider the man, judge the heart!
Patton was right about the Soviets. Too bad the Allies failed to heed his warnings. Patton had the right ideas to fight a war. A leader is not supposed to be loved by their troops, they are supposed to push their men beyond what they can do. I think Bradley hold Patton back too many times. Glad that the Germans feared him more.
I think he would have been looked at better if he'd had been a civil war general. I think he was a little too gung ho for modern generalship, honestly, I'd rather fought for Montgomery.
He was reckless driving long distance not thinking about his flanks the supply lines and the infantry role . Blitzkrieg warfare,looks good in movies.
He was a glory hound, like most of the other generals. He would throw his men into any fight. Regardless of enemy numbers. Eisenhower chewed him out several times for his antics.his men said his guts, our blood.........
Hypothetically speaking - if Patton had been held to the standards of the Nuremberg Trials he would have been executed for war crimes. Before the invasion of Sicily, Patton gave explicit orders to his commanders not to accept German/Italian surrender unless they did so IMMEDIATELY on first contact with American troops. At Biscari airfield in Sicily on July 14 1943, after a protracted fight two American officers massacred 73 unarmed Italian and German prisoners. Two separate court-martials were convened and at one of them the defendant was excused when he maintained that he was only doing exactly what he had been ordered to do by his commanding General and witnesses confirmed this claim.
Tbh Patton ended up the same way as Romania WW1 General Ion Dragalina.
Gravely wounded during an ambush shortly before the war was over if memory serves.
Master of the sword! What a title to have when serving in the army. I wonder what kind of decoration that was on his class As
Arrogant people are often loved especially in the States so the title isn't as piffy as you'd think
Patton: confident!
Bradley accused Patton of poor tactics and said his idea of tactics is attack attack attack ……..Patton said Audacity Audacity Audacity…….sounds to me that old George would of allways been a successful leader as Audacious attacks were what julius Ceaser was renowned for but his troops losses would of been far higher than say other allied leaders .
An American general once said, "There goes George again, bravely advancing against nothing."
@@renard801 Which general said that
The Biscari Massacre was actually two separate incidents. The first was committed by a single soldier, Sergeant Horace West. He was tried and convicted of his crime. The second was committed by a squad of men formed into a firing squad under the command of Captain John Compton. Compton was also tried but acquitted.
5:56 Two, not several.
6:24 Patton was already a lieutenant general, could you possibly mean full general?
A video like this on Dwight D. Eisenhower should be made sir.
What, full of myths and glossing over reality?
I'd say that Patton was "break glass in time of war" leader. Peacetime soldiers who advance by greasing superiors will always tear down the accomplishments of those who win wars.
We have lots of peacetime officers telling us how brave they are today.
Do you people think before typing? The only reason he wasn't sacked after his shit performance in Sicily was that he had friends in high places back home (including Marshall) who made Ike keep him.
During the Interwar years Patton Kept many officers (several became his superiors) from quitting the Military and Kept them on his staff, including Eisenhower.
Perfect people are pretty hard to come by. We can and should admire those who have accomplished things worth admiring. But if we are wise, will equally hold all accountable where we must - even if, and maybe especially, when that is the same person.
Three things a great leader has to do.
Take risks.
Inspire the troops to do things they think impossible.
And don't get the risk, or what your troops can truly do,wrong.
Yes, Patton was a racist. No dispute. What is surprising is that he was considerably less racist than many of the other American generals at the time. People comment on his racism today because many of the black soldiers who served under him in WW2 believed that he wasn't racist and that he treated them like equals. He didn't view them as equals but he gave them credit for a lot more good qualities (like being good soldiers and very courageous, etc.) than most of the other (far more racist) generals at that time.
Patton was a glory hound and proud of it. Carlo D'Este's biography, Patton: A Genius For War, contains Patton's own journal entries where he criticized his classmates at West Point who enlisted because of patriotism, rather than a desire for glory.
Patton's participation in Operation Fortitude was very convincing. The Germans thought that Patton was the best commander the Allies had and could not conceive of a general being disciplined for striking his soldiers. His absence from Normandy was enough to convince many in the Abwher that it was a feint.
There is no evidence to show that Patton was being 'watched' by the Germans 'because they thought he was the best Allied General. It has been established that Patton's diaries have been altered in that certain sentences were 'written in' months after the original date and these entries are the ones most commonly quoted to show how he had special insight .
It's refreshing to read so many comments pointing out that Patton was not a particularly great general. His reputation owes largely to his personal bs, his adoring Press Corps, and a brilliant but inaccurate movie.
By any chance many of them were the fans of a certain General who the historian Jonathan Parshall calls a wretched Human being?
@@markgarrett3647mainly just fans of accurate history.
@@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85 True history fans would note how the Third Army got more stuff done than the entire 21st. Army group at Normandy and beyond with less.
@@markgarrett3647 " True history fans would note how the Third Army got more stuff done than the entire 21st. Army group at Normandy and beyond with less."
Against what opposition exactly? Monty and Bradley did the leg work of what happened in Normandy. They destroyed the German army, Patton fought left over units. 21st Army advanced 350 miles in 6 days, it took Patton 2 weeks to advance 60 miles. The third army is overrated.
I think Patton was about as Reckless as he was Lucky. And hey if the Axis feared him it means he knew how to fight a war. Something no one can deny.
That's a big "if". They didn't know who he was. Before D-Day, they had whole dossiers on Ike, Monty & Bradley, but nothing on Patton. He barely got mentioned until Balck criticised his "timid and cautious" leadership during the Lorraine campaign.
Feared by the axis? lol yeah, sure, good...try
That's a myth, brother. The Germans didn't give a fuck about him. The ones that received most attention by the Germans were Monty, Eisenhower and Bradley because they were the main Western Allies commanders, why would the Germans care about a single Army general?
A family friend served under Patton. When asked about him he just responded with “Patton didn’t want no sissies.” 😂
A general that has never been shot doesn't know what is at stake for his men, and should never be in command...
He was a brilliant leader but a poor follower and ultimately he became a bigger liability than an asset to his superiors. If he survived the war I would be very curious to see how his career finished, I suspect it would have ended on a down note similarly to MacArthur.
Despise his controversies, I greatly admire his ability to lead men
How Ike treated Patton was a disgrace and later a foreshadowing of how he would throw Nixon under the bus as a politician after the fake reporting of his supposedly secret campaign funds surfaced.
And murder one of his own in WWI.🤡
Reminds my a lot of Ulysses S Grant from the US Civil War. Sure he wasn't perfect, but in the end he got it done.
Again and again, people making videos fail to note Patton was dyslexic. People with dyslexia tend to have their brains wired in a different way and leads them to perceive the world and their surroundings differently than what is considered 'normal'.
This is quite important as this affected his approach to commanding generalship and tactics.
I have read extensively about WW2 and the military leaders. None of them were perfect. None. What a surprise that human frailties show up in military leaders. With regard to Paton, would you rather have him on your side or fight against him?
Patton was a man of his time. He wouldn't have advanced as far in today's US Army, because he spoke his mind and believed in putting a common sense approach to warfare over political games. A good example of this is his controversial outspokeness for siding with the Germans against the Soviets. Whether he was right or wrong about that, the Cold War did last for over 40 years and tensions with Russia continue to this day while West Germany, and eventually a unified Germany, became a valuable ally.
I'm a veteran of today's Army, and my subjective opinion may not be shared by all, but I think that very few officers who come even remotely close to Patton's character and ability to conduct warfare make it past Colonel these days. The ones that do make Brigadier General serve under the politicized senior generals and either begin to conform or retire as, at most, Major Generals with a divisional command.
I think it's relevant that you mentioned he's the first guy to put a machine gun on a car when he killed those three people..
Patton's major success was his drive through Britany, however, it was successful because there were virtually no Germans there. Especially, there were no tanks, they were all facing the British and Canadian forces advancing from Caen. His thrusting cavalry stile soon came to a stop at Metz where the Germans stood to fight.
He was not particularly liked by his men, who quoted 'His guts, our blood' Montgomery did not 'despise' Patton, he probably never even gave him much consideration.
And Patton's 3rd Army didn't go into combat until August 1st. After the hard work in Normandy had already been done during the previous 2 months.
That's the point. His armour-heavy command was meant to hit the enemy troops where they're least prepared and densely concentrated and win with far less casualties in comparison to a WWI-type set piece battle favoured by a certain General who was called by the historian Jonathan Parshall a wretched Human being.
Don’t shorten the intro music!
See the bonus army. Patton was happy to charge at them with bayonets and tear gas. He was over rated
That has nothing to do with his leadership in combat during WWII
I don't get people who castigate Patton and MacArthur for the whole bonus army thing. What were they supposed to do? Disobey direct orders from the President and risk being discharged or permanently demoted because they could not foresee how wildly unpopular their actions would be in 90 years?
@@redaug4212 Also, they both should have been bipoc transsexual Marxists...or something.
@@redaug4212 actually president Hoover didn't order it, and he was very angry at MacArthur, wanting to sack him, but was told but other generals and advisors said that with the great depression going on, it would make people possibly lose to much confidence in that the president, since he couldn't control his own generals. Mac's sacking in the korean war was a long time coming.
Now reportedly the event strained Pattons and MacArthur's relationship but I havent verified this.
@@swampdonkey1567 Hoover ordered the first attack on the encampment, but yes, MacArthur continued to attack despite Hoover's order to stop. Now whether this was this done deliberately or due to miscommunication is not clear. Some of MacArthur's subordinates at the time (including Eisenhower) stated that the halt orders were never received. What's interesting is that the man responsible for relaying these orders to MacArthur, General George Moseley, was an ardent national socialist who believed the bonus army to be a communist coup.
With a little speculation, I think it's quite possible that Moseley intentionally withheld the orders so MacArthur would obliviously destroy the rest of the bonus army. Which isn't to absolve MacArthur of any wrongdoing of course. I'm sure he could have been less zealous in his tactical approach.
Geetsly's is that you mate
Oh, FFS. STOP THESE STUPID MYTHS! Patton was NOT a great General. He never once excelled at attacking a strongly held position. He stalled in Tunisia. He didn't communicate with the navy and got hundreds of airborne troops killed by friendly fire in Sicily. Then, by running off to Palermo against orders, he managed to leave Monty's flank open, and instead of cutting the enemy troops on the western side of the island off, he drove them before him back to Messina, where 100,000 enemy troops and equipment got off to the mainland. It's probably this, more than the other mistakes, that led to him being sidelined for Overlord. And that myth takes the cake! "Patton was soooo good, he was more valuable as a decoy, than actually leading an Army for the MOST IMPORTANT OPERATION OF THE WESTERN EUROPEAN THEATRE!" I mean, really?!? No. He stalled again when he hit opposition in Lorraine, where, once again, his poor grasp of logistics slowed him down, and his inability to concentrate force where needed got him stopped time and again. He stalled at Metz for THREE MONTHS, and for all I know, he'd still be there if he hadn't got ordered to relieve Bastogne! Then there's the Hammelburg raid. Easily the most overrated, pompous, self serving, self promoting General of WW2, and possibly of all time. A terrible and unimaginative leader in attack, who just yelled at his subordinates to do something till they put ill prepared, poorly planned piecemeal attacks out to shit him up. He cost thousands of US lives for little gain.
He was a determined general and the media and politicians should not get involved with the militaries tactics as long as they’re meeting the rules of engagement.
Patton wanted to continue and defeat Russia and it would have saved a lot of Russian lives who died under communism. It would have spared the world of the nuclear arsenal buildups too.
I think he's been shown enough... I think we need to expand on Norman Cota
Overblown in the sense most German commanders never heard of him. Also overblown in the sense that other than in Sicily Patton and Monty were never equals.
They were very aware of him during the Ardennes offensive according to Hymel.
@@markgarrett3647 … German Generals fighting him knew about Patton. Knowing was required for them and their intel officers. It would have been unprofessional and not in the Prussian military tradition to be otherwise. But only 1/4 of the German Army was in NW Europe. The bulk of German combat Generals were commanding on the Eastern Front. Patton wasn’t on their professional radar
The guy was a disgrace to the uniform. The soldiers who fought under Patton called him the butcher and old blood and guts, because they hated his guts and that’s a fact that is often misinterpreted.
Beloved to a point. Shake it loose doesn't help in the long run
Patton was a soldier through and through. Not a diplomat or politician. A great commander. God rest his soul.
Not underrated. Not overrated. Just fairly decent and fully competent. Plus its not like he was fighting the best of german forces. The real deal fought marvelously and valiantly but perished at eastern front.
Patton was a rash commander who suffered many more casualties than were necessary. His actions at the Battle of the Bulge are overrated as the Airborne division had the situation stabilized before Patton's men could arrive. His assault on patients suffering from shell shock is inexcusable and should have resulted not only in dismissal but court martial. He also dismissed great soldiers such as Teddy Roosevelt Jr. a man who proved his excellence at Utah Beach. Patton should be remembered as a sick man (he even had visions) who was an adequate commander. If he had been a soldier as his Uncle who died at Gettysburg, he may have been remembered as the USA best soldier ever.
If you were a sissy back then you were a sissy
Not like today's generation where EVERYBODY is a sissy