Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 12/23/2003 6:49:22 AM EDT
Another thread got me thinking.  

What would Patton or McArthur think of a General like Wes Clark?
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 6:51:30 AM EDT
Patton in particular - "Bitchslap" comes to mind.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 6:55:07 AM EDT
Patton in particular - "Bitchslap" comes to mind.
View Quote

Patton was actually a fairly reviled general officer during his time. His image was rehabilitated after George C. Scott's portrayal. That's a FACT.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 6:57:20 AM EDT
Reviled by who?  His men or other officers?  (Serious question)
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 6:59:26 AM EDT
I've heard that Wesley  Clark is the ideal French General.....
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:03:30 AM EDT
Reviled by who? His men or other officers? (Serious question)
View Quote

Both (and the media). He was just as flamboyant as Mac and an overbearing loudmouth to boot. Because of this, he made an ideal subject for a movie during the counterculture of the late sixties and early seventies. He was wild enough to appeal to the anti-establishment types and a big enough hardass to appeal to the conservative crowd. The original movie title was to be "Patton: An American Rebel." And thus a legend is born (he also suffered from dyslexia).
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:04:28 AM EDT
Mac arther was another asshole that became a hero because of circumstance (wwII) but was such a wacko they had to fire him. (korea)

The fact is this- during the depression Vets of WWI turned up in washington to ask for their benefits early cause of the depression. They set up small tent towns around washington. When the president asshole Hoover told them to take a hike they protested. Now Mac arther considered these vets to be Traitors! because they dared protest against the FED GOVT. And they were worried a riot would brake out. So happily Macarther used tear gas and fire hoses and troops with bayonets to drive them out of the capitol and destroyed their tent citys. For which he was promoted! as for the vets? who cared!
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:04:34 AM EDT
There's an elderly gentleman in my local Rotary club that was one of Patton's drivers. I've had long conversations with him about his experiences in 3rd Army and to him, Patton is a absolute God. And most of 3rd Army seems to think so too.

If you have a chance, read the book "Lucky Forward". It's about third Army's drive into Europe.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:04:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:05:26 AM EDT
Patton was actually a fairly reviled general officer during his time. His image was rehabilitated after George C. Scott's portrayal. That's a FACT.
View Quote


My Uncle fought under Patton until he got shot up after the relief of Bastogne.  He thought Patton was an unmitigated prick and a prima donna.  He also said he was a tough bastard and the only brass he trusted to do the "right" thing - like go after the "Russkies" in 1945.  
That's a (firsthand) FACT.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:07:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BayEagle:
Patton was actually a fairly reviled general officer during his time. His image was rehabilitated after George C. Scott's portrayal. That's a FACT.
View Quote


My Uncle fought under Patton until he got shot up after the relief of Bastogne.  He thought Patton was an unmitigated prick and a prima donna.  He also said he was a tough bastard and the only brass he trusted to do the "right" thing - like go after the "Russkies" in 1945.  
That's a (firsthand) FACT.
View Quote


Sounds like although he may not have been loved by all, he was respected.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:09:16 AM EDT
But my understanding was that the common soldiers loved their general, who was almost always exposing himself to enemy fire.
View Quote

He was a mini-managing asshole.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:11:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:15:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:19:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Yeah, he could have 'mini-managed' the Third Army into Berlin before the Russkies crossed the Vistula River!

I know the Germans wished they had a battalion of General Pattons to mini manage their war!

He was their very worst fear!

What more can you say about any general other than the enemy feared him the most?

Eric The(Respectful)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote

I think you need to check your IM, Mister!!!
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 7:20:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By t-stox:
Mac arther was another asshole that became a hero because of circumstance (wwII) but was such a wacko they had to fire him. (korea)

The fact is this- during the depression Vets of WWI turned up in washington to ask for their benefits early cause of the depression. They set up small tent towns around washington. When the president asshole Hoover told them to take a hike they protested. Now Mac arther considered these vets to be Traitors! because they dared protest against the FED GOVT. And they were worried a riot would brake out. So happily Macarther used tear gas and fire hoses and troops with bayonets to drive them out of the capitol and destroyed their tent citys. For which he was promoted! as for the vets? who cared!
View Quote

My, my, my! Aren't we just being a tad bit overblown here?

The President ordered the crowds to be dispersed and the Bonus Army camps removed.

What was General MacArthur to do?

Was it a lawful order of the Commander in Chief? Was there demonstrable violence in our nation's capital?

Were there not Communist agitators among these noble veterans?

And, to put it mildly, were these veterans right in protesting for the immediate payment of a bonus that was not to be paid until 1945?

If Congress suddenly cut off food stamps and welfare, would you feel the same way about an army of welfare folks threatening Washington?

Get real.

It's the one real problem that I found in John Ross' [b]Unintended Consequences[/b].

Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote

Hun pwnage! [:D]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 8:13:45 AM EDT
ownage huh?
The President ordered the crowds to be dispersed and the Bonus Army camps removed.

What was general Macarther to do?
View Quote

Well  for one he did'nt have to enjoy it! He truly belived that these vets ALL of them were traitors! he truly went out of his way to beat them out of D.C.
Were there not Communist agitators among these noble veterans?
View Quote

Ah the age old cry of the opressor! Commies! labor union giving you trouble? damn commies? working people demanding a fair wage? damn commies! rich scumbags cant' sleep at night? commies!
And, to put it mildly, were these veterans right in protesting for the immediate payment of a bonus that was not to be paid until 1945?
View Quote
The fact is THE PEOPLE have the right to assemble peaceably and to redress the gov't for greviences. No matter what they are. So what does the fed do? they pull all kinds of shit to prevent lawful protest! Permits, NO loitering, a few fistfights means unlawful assembly so arrest'em all , you can only assemble in a closet before 3am but not after 3:15 am etc. etc.
If Congress suddenly cut off food stamps and welfare, would you feel the same way about an army of welfare folks threatening Washington?

View Quote
Threatening?! Who's Threatening ? single mothers with their ten kids? how can they destroy D.C and it's crony bigshots except maybe throw diapers at them! as to the vets as well, what threat? (AH more commies again) they just made the pres look bad in public opinion and he was sick of it.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 8:42:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ramjet:
There's an elderly gentleman in my local Rotary club that was one of Patton's drivers. I've had long conversations with him about his experiences in 3rd Army and to him, Patton is a absolute God. And most of 3rd Army seems to think so too.

If you have a chance, read the book "Lucky Forward". It's about third Army's drive into Europe.
View Quote


Most, but not all.  I dated a gal whose dad was an NCO in Patton's 3rd Army.  He hated Gen. Patton.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 8:54:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2003 8:56:53 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:03:29 AM EDT
My wifes dad served under Patton. To hear him talk, he thought Patton shit gold turds.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:09:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raf:
I have known a number of WWII vets, some of whom were in Patton's Third Army.
Some of them, a minority, resent his leadership style because it led them to exert themselves far beyond what they thought themselves capable of, let alone what they wanted to do.
Most of them were, and still are, proud to have been associated with him.
When you ask them what they did in the War, they generally don't give regimental or divisional associations.
Every one, to a man, stands a little straighter, and says: "I was with Patton".

As to the original question, I refer you to Patton's comments on General Mark Clark.
View Quote


And what comment was that about Gen. Mark Clark....
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:15:22 AM EDT
there were several:

Clark was trying to be nice, but it makes my flesh creep to be with him.

Ike and Clark were in conference as to what to do. Neither of them had been to the front, so they showed great lack of decision. They have no knowledge of men or war. Too damned slick, especially Clark.

As far as I am concerned, General Clark has explained nothing. He seems to me more preoccupied with bettering his own future than in winning the war.

Wayne has his camp in the garden of a palace after which Versailles was copied. It is very beautiful, but too far to the rear.

Things are going worse with the 5th Army. Last night they flew in a regimental combat team of the 82nd Airborne to help out. It is noteworthy that when I asked for similar assistance last month, I was told that the 82nd was too valuable to be wasted as infantry.

I just saw a dispatch from the Navy in which it seems that Clark has re-embarked. I consider this fatal for a commander. Think of the effect on the troops. A commander, once ashore, must either conquer or die.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:16:24 AM EDT
He did manage to insult the 101st and the USMC with this one:

The 101st Airborne call themselves the triple B's. Battered Bastards of Bastogne. They did well, but like the Marines of the last war, they get more credit than they deserve.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:18:23 AM EDT
Hun,

My take on a drive to Berlin.

Patton wasn't in the position to make a move on Berlin at the end of the war. That honor would have gone to Simpson's Ninth Army. The fact of the matter is that elements of the 2nd Armored (41st Armored Infantry) and the Third Battalion of the 30th Division's 119th Infantry crossed the Elbe in April 1945 in order to protect the bridgehead at Westerhusen, which is just south of Magdeburg, for the push to Berlin. This bridgehead could not be maintained. The 83rd Division crossed just south of the 2nd's Bridgehead and has scouts within 35-40 miles of Berlin before Bradley told Simpson to pull them back.Bradley was concerned about potential losses but if the 2nd's bridge held, General White's boys would have been knocking on Berlin's doors within 48 hours. They would have been there before anyone made the decision to hold them up. The Ninth Army covered 200 miles in 14 days.

Mt father in law crossed with the 119th on April 12, 1945 and was captured after the Bridgehead fell.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:28:50 AM EDT
Patton's view of GenWesClark
View Quote


[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=19175[/img]


Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:19:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:30:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Post from d-tox -
Well for one he did'nt have to enjoy it!
View Quote

How do [u]you[/u] know that he enjoyed it?

The photos that I have seen of him during this event look pretty stern and serious to me.

Not a smile to be seen among his staff (which included, BTW, both Patton and Eisenhower), so I doubt they were enjoying the scene much at all either.
He truly belived that these vets ALL of them were traitors! he truly went out of his way to beat them out of D.C.
View Quote

He obeyed his orders.

Again, what would you have him do?

Sit down and join their Bonus Army? [:D]
Ah the age old cry of the opressor! Commies! labor union giving you trouble? damn commies? working people demanding a fair wage? damn commies! rich scumbags cant' sleep at night? commies!
View Quote

I can certainly see that abysmal ignorance of these times runs amok.

Do you think there may have been certain left wing agitators among them?

Maybe a few?

Why don't you read the stories and find out.
The fact is THE PEOPLE have the right to assemble peaceably and to redress the gov't for greviences.
View Quote

That's right, but time, manner, place can always be regulated with a view to the public safety.

Or do you reject that as well?
No matter what they are. So what does the fed do? they pull all kinds of shit to prevent lawful protest! Permits, NO loitering, a few fistfights means unlawful assembly so arrest'em all , you can only assemble in a closet before 3am but not after 3:15 am etc. etc.
View Quote

Jeepers, but you do grasp at straws, eh?

Can you give us realworld examples of when such prior restraints have been upheld by the courts for peaceable assembly?
Threatening?! Who's Threatening ? single mothers with their ten kids? how can they destroy D.C and it's crony bigshots except maybe throw diapers at them! as to the vets as well, what threat? (AH more commies again) they just made the pres look bad in public opinion and he was sick of it.
View Quote

Let me get your story of this sad chapter in American history straight:

You think that President Hoover ordered the move against the Bonus Army Marchers and their camp in Anacostia simply because he was losing popularity with the American public?

Damn, but that's incredible! [:D]

It's almost as if you knew nothing of American History!

Eric The(Unreal!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote


And there's Hun's orgasm for the day.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:41:20 AM EDT
I do NOT understand the facination with McArthur myself.

Not once but TWICE the man made serious, fatal misjudgements that cost us one whole Army in 1942 and nearly another one in 1951.

He was even more likely than Patton to let his ego get in the way of his work.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 11:16:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 11:26:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
I do NOT understand the facination with McArthur myself.

Not once but TWICE the man made serious, fatal misjudgements that cost us one whole Army in 1942 and nearly another one in 1951.

He was even more likely than Patton to let his ego get in the way of his work.
View Quote

What fatal misjudgments?

How could [u]any[/u] commander have fought the Japanese to a standoff in the Philippines in 1942?

And how do you reasonably anticipate 2 Million Chinese 'Volunteers' coming into the fray?

No one else did, did they?

Besides, I suppose that you just had to be there to understand the men's attachment to the General.

The only two times I ever saw my father cry was at his own father's funeral and the morning that he came into my bedroom and told me that General MacArthur had died.

And I still think that his Farewell Speech before Congress was the best speech that Congress had ever heard in those chambers.

Eric The(Adulatory)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote


Yes a compitent general could of held the Japanese to a stalemate in the Philippines, if he didn't allow his airforce to be largely blown up on the ground in spite of 12 hours warning. And allowing most of the survivors to be frittered away in uncoordinated, piecemeal attacks on the Japanese shipping.

There were plans for dispersement and defense of the airfields, but no training or practice in carrying out these plans. There was no air traffic control, no way for control the air defences with the radars installed at Ida Field and Ft. McKinley. Months had been frittered away without touching on these issues.

Yet he kept insisting to Washington that the Philippines could be defended, and talked Roosavelt into sending more and more manpower and air assets into the Philippines.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 11:42:16 AM EDT
On the ground there was a similar problem. Three West Coast National Guard tank battalions were called up, and sent with 165 modern Stuart tanks, lights in our army but superior to anything Japan fielded and a very large chunk of the modern armor available to the US in 1941. But no planning or training was conducted in how to integrate them into the defense, and they were frittered away in penny packets instead of either crushing the Japanese landings or defending the Manila Plain with a mobile defense.

In Korea in the Winter of 50-51 McArthur ignored the signs of increasing numbers of Chinese units being encountered, almost as soon as the Allies recrossed the 38th Parallel. The attacks by Chinese Migs on Allied aircraft over North Korea, on the Korean side of the Yalu was also ignored. He also ignored the declining effectiveness of the advancing Allied units. When the Chinese launched their main offensive, the 2nd Infantry Division counted just 9000 effectives out of a table strength of 17,000. Equipment was worn out and supply lines were failing from the sheer distance involved. Warnings about overextended positions, heavy and increasing Chinese infiltration and nusence attacks from line commanders were ignored because they didn't fit McArthurs preconceptions about the Chinese being ineffective troops.

Just like he underestimated the danger posed by the Japanese air forces and the quality of their troops.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 1:24:07 PM EDT
ArmdLbrl,

You beat me to it in regard to Dugout Doug. Few people know about the line of BS he fed Quezon before the war. It's interesting to note that while Mc Arthur despised Eisenhower, Quezon respected him beacuse he told it like it was. Ike was a realist. He knew the Phillipines couldn't be defended with what was on hand.

Eric,

You need to simmer down on the hero worship. The men worthy of our respect are the ones McA left behind on Corregidor and Bataan.

Oh, and while I'm here: Mc Arthur recommended the Presidential Unit Citation for all of the units on Corregidor except for one. Care to guess? "They have recieved enough medals" was his reason why.

G
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 3:37:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2003 3:45:43 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
The thing about McArthur that is so odd is that he clearly had the ability to be a good commander. While his defense of the Philippines bordered on the deriliction of duty, his return march up New Guinea and through the Philippine Islands was competantly planned and executed.

His 1950 counterstroke to save Puson and liberate South Korea was masterful, easily the best bit of soldiering he had ever done and had he stopped there he would have UNQUESTIONABLY gone down as Americas greatest general. And what happened in the Philippines could have just been written off as a expensive lesson to a man who in spite of his rank and age had, in fact never commanded anything larger than a regiment in actual combat in WWI. But his advance to the Yalu was as foolhardy and ill conceved as the return to the 38th Parallel was masterful.

After taking Poyngyang, he became like he had been in 1941. He LIED to Truman about Chinese intentions, withheld information that corroborated Bill Donovans warnings from CIA sources in Taiwan, and because of McArthurs professional reputation Truman went with him over Bill Donovan and the CIA.

Most truely incompitent officers are [i]consistantly[/i] incompitent. McArthur was one of the few, like George Custer, who had both flashes of brilliance and amazing stupidity.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 4:44:19 PM EDT
I cant freakin argue every single line of a post as it gets boring a too damn long! however I must ask Eric thehun ,,, Have you ever been wrong about anything ever?? have your political opinions always turned out to be true? just thinking maybe your the infallable pope or something!?   t-(mere mortal)stox[@:D]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 5:00:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By t-stox:
I cant freakin argue every single line of a post as it gets boring a too damn long! however I must ask Eric thehun ,,, Have you ever been wrong about anything ever?? have your political opinions always turned out to be true? just thinking maybe your the infallable pope or something!?   t-(mere mortal)stox[@:D]
View Quote
He's never wrong [:D]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 6:22:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
On the ground there was a similar problem. Three West Coast National Guard tank battalions were called up, and sent with 165 modern Stuart tanks, lights in our army but superior to anything Japan fielded and a very large chunk of the modern armor available to the US in 1941. But no planning or training was conducted in how to integrate them into the defense, and they were frittered away in penny packets instead of either crushing the Japanese landings or defending the Manila Plain with a mobile defense.

In Korea in the Winter of 50-51 McArthur ignored the signs of increasing numbers of Chinese units being encountered, almost as soon as the Allies recrossed the 38th Parallel. The attacks by Chinese Migs on Allied aircraft over North Korea, on the Korean side of the Yalu was also ignored. He also ignored the declining effectiveness of the advancing Allied units. When the Chinese launched their main offensive, the 2nd Infantry Division counted just 9000 effectives out of a table strength of 17,000. Equipment was worn out and supply lines were failing from the sheer distance involved. Warnings about overextended positions, heavy and increasing Chinese infiltration and nusence attacks from line commanders were ignored because they didn't fit McArthurs preconceptions about the Chinese being ineffective troops.

Just like he underestimated the danger posed by the Japanese air forces and the quality of their troops.
View Quote


MacArthur fubar'ed badly at the Unsan/Yalu river engagement.  No excuses. Poor use of intelligence, even disregarding information from India that China was planning on intervening on North Koreas behalf. Yes I think any logical person would be wary of the Chinese along such a sensitive border with (never heard the number of two million volunteers, rather I think it was 300,000)Chinese soldiers after hearing of warnings, and obvious efforts by the Chinese to conceal troop movements. 13,000 soldiers died because of this,which I feel was the worst defeat in U.S. history because of MacArthur's arrogance and feelings of invincibility. The Korean war also prolonged because of this defeat. I am glad he was sacked for it.

At the Wake Island conference, 10-15-1950
MacArthur BS that was fed to President Truman:
" I believe that formal resistance will end throughout North and South Korea by Thanksgiving. " He further states that North Koreans are poorly trained and equiped and only fighting to save face"
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:39:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By t-stox:
I cant freakin argue every single line of a post as it gets boring a too damn long! however I must ask Eric thehun ,,, Have you ever been wrong about anything ever?? have your political opinions always turned out to be true? just thinking maybe your the infallable pope or something!?   t-(mere mortal)stox[@:D]
View Quote
He's never wrong [:D]
View Quote



One thing about Eric,
I may not always agree with him, (however I almost always do) his arguments are always logical and well written.  And most of all he is always polite.  
Kudos to you Eric.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 9:49:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2003 9:51:00 PM EDT by nilatS]
Oh, and while I'm here: Mc Arthur recommended the Presidential Unit Citation for all of the units on Corregidor except for one. Care to guess? "They have recieved enough medals" was his reason why.
View Quote



4th Marines.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:16:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
But my understanding was that the common soldiers loved their general, who was almost always exposing himself to enemy fire.
View Quote

He was a mini-managing asshole.
View Quote


Just curious, fella, did you ever get treated for battle fatigue while serving under Patton? [;D]
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:29:46 PM EDT
Patton: Brilliant tactician, hardass and irritant to the army.
MacArthur: Brilliant and Inept (50/50), but believed his own legend, to his detriment.
Clark: Outclassed in combat. Kesselring outsmarted him at every turn, but Clark had the resources to outlast. Didn't his men want him busted from rank for his lack of leadership after the war?

Feel free to disagree.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:32:43 PM EDT
Over the years, the more I have read concerning the man, the more I have come to loathe MacArthur.  He was truly a pompous prick, and not an especially imaginative general, other than his famous amphibious landing in Korea.  Eisenhower thought little of him.  After serving under MacArthur and George Marshall he once remarked "I'd rather have one George Marshall than a million MacArthurs."

Someone also mentioned my other most favorite POS general, Bernard Law Montgomery.  Eisenhower's take on Monty was he "was a small man, inside as well as outside."

As for Wes Clark, the original topic of this thread, he's just a pompous prick wannabe.  In the grand scheme of things he's just a pimple on the tip of Bill Clinton's prick.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 10:54:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Patton in particular - "Bitchslap" comes to mind.
View Quote

Patton was actually a fairly reviled general officer during his time. His image was rehabilitated after George C. Scott's portrayal. That's a FACT.
View Quote


I'll agree with that.  My grandfather served under Patton.  He told me that when Patton was killed, service men cheered.
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 11:13:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By brouhaha:
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Patton in particular - "Bitchslap" comes to mind.
View Quote

Patton was actually a fairly reviled general officer during his time. His image was rehabilitated after George C. Scott's portrayal. That's a FACT.
View Quote


I'll agree with that.  My grandfather served under Patton.  He told me that when Patton was killed, service men cheered.
View Quote


Patton was definitely a controversial general, but cheering at his death seems a bit harsh, don't you think?
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 11:18:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/23/2003 11:19:57 PM EDT
I can find no evidence of widespread dislike of Patton or that the movie did anything to rehabilitate his image.

Generals hated him because he was not a politician.

Men hated him cause he made them do work that other generals were not making their men do.

However, they always won, so that kind of left them in a love hate relationship.

The same kind of relationship that Grant had with his men. The same men who elected him president overwhelmingly 3 years later.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 12:11:53 AM EDT
Patton was often an actor. In private with his officers he was often quite different from the persona he presented to the public.

He rarely removed officers. I think only one or two of his division commanders was ever relieved, and at least one of those was at the officer's request. Hodges in the 1st Army, on the other hand, would remove division commanders for the slightest perceived problem, and was (with Collins) a micro-manager.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 5:28:47 AM EDT
I can think of one division commander Patton relieved. "Tiger" Jack Woods of the 4th Armored Division. He was relieved before the 4th's famous push to Bastogne.  He was a long-time friend of Patton's whose background was artillery before he went into tanks. He disagreed with Patton's push westward in France; he believed resources should have been moved east. The funny thing is Patton had the same view. The fact that Patton's subordinate didn't know that Patton disagreed with these orders just shows how loyal he was to the chain of command.

Link Posted: 12/24/2003 5:35:47 AM EDT
I can find no evidence of widespread dislike of Patton or that the movie did anything to rehabilitate his image.
View Quote

I guess you must've missed the History Channel's "History vs. Hollywood" episode on this, among other things. He was left to command a fake army during the Normandy Invasion for a reason, just as he was eventually outranked by his subordinates for the same reason.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 6:54:47 AM EDT
A General is not going to get 100,000 men to do his bidding, at a great personal risk of death, by being polite.

100,000 men are not going to throw themselves at the enemy to the first guy who asks nicely.

A General is not going to march over an opposing army, like the Germans during WW2, by being humble and thoughtful, that's what their underlings are for.

An American Army couldn't have defeated the German Army unless they were more frightened of the guys behind them, than they were of the guys in front of them.

Leaders like Patton and MacAurther were fanatics. Gen. MacAurther had Patton and Eisenhower riding down and hacking American veterans (men they served with) with their sabers, during the Bonus Army massacre.

Words like arrogant, flamboyant, asshole, tough, vicious, beligerent or whatever you want to call them, utterly fail to communicate the unwavering self-confidence and determination these kind of men possess. They lust for conquest. Once they are set upon their path, they will either ignore you, or if you are an obstacle, they will destroy you. The outcrys of rage and dissent is music to their ears.

My kinda guys...

Link Posted: 12/24/2003 9:53:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2003 9:55:18 AM EDT by 1911Shootist]
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
I can find no evidence of widespread dislike of Patton or that the movie did anything to rehabilitate his image.
View Quote

I guess you must've missed the History Channel's "History vs. Hollywood" episode on this, among other things. He was left to command a fake army during the Normandy Invasion for a reason, just as he was eventually outranked by his subordinates for the same reason.
View Quote


Oh my God, if it was on TV then it's gotta be true. [rolleyes]

He was left to command a fake army for a very good reason.  The Germans considered him the best American field commander and assumed he would command the invasion.  The ruse worked very well to allow the real invasion to succeed.
Top Top