We should be thankful for these small mercies.
On the good side I think the probability that the armed forces leadership decides to back Trumps side in the upcoming civil war just took a big hit
I don’t think they were going for Nazi rally. I think they were going for the opening speech scene in Patton, where George C Scott says you don’t win wars by dying for your country, but by making the other poor bastard die for his.
Sadly, it came across more as Major Frank Burns complaining to Colonel Blake about Cpl Klinger. (Apologies to the late Larry Linville, who never did anything to deserve such a horrible comparison.)
It solves the “problem” which Hegseth, Trump, etc. have, for months, made very clear that they believe exists: that the military has become weak, because it’s too “woke,” too “sensitive,” too much “defense” and not enough “offense,” not aggressive enough, and not manly-man enough.
Sure, but Patton himself (and even as played by George C. Scott) could command respect, based on his achievements. He got results.
Hegseth? An undistinguished military career. Trump? Never in the military. It’s difficult to command respect, when you’ve done nothing that the military should respect you for.
I have some respect for the military men and women who were summoned to attend and listen. They displayed no emotion—no applause, no cheers (probably disappointing Trump); but perhaps most importantly for their careers, they didn’t burst out laughing at being told how to do their jobs by a pair who are clearly unqualified to do so.
I’ve been very reluctant to admit that Trump ever says anything really dumb on grounds that he knows his audience. And any dumb-sounding thing he says could potentially be explained as an effort to show his dominance over the audience. But I must admit that his naval strategizing, at Quantico this morning, is most plausibly explained by dumbness:
Web search indicates that no world Navy has had a battleship on active duty in the past thirty years, and I cannot find anyone except Donald Trump advocating their construction.
Also, according to ChatGPT, which seems to be getting fairly reliable for questions like this, modern destroyer, cruiser, and carrier hulls are never made from aluminum.
On the plus side, there could be an admiral or two, previously Trump-adjacent, who, this morning, was converted to never-Trumpdom. One can dream.
If anyone here still remembers Bill Mauldin, he would beg to differ. His memoir of the Italian campaign was not very complementary to Patton. He considered Patton a total Poseur.
Donald Trump, as quoted in PhillyGuy’s post.
“We need to dress them up with more gold trim and accents from Home Depot!”
Actually, now that I think of it a bit more, Patton might be more illuminating than I had previously thought. The movie portrays the general as a flawed genius - unmatched in tactical and strategic acumen, but with an an ego that gets him into repeated trouble and with an inability to allow his soldiers to be human (slapping the guy with PTSD, and the graceless apology following). The movie ends with him being relieved of duty for being an asshole to the Soviets etc. It’s kind of like a classical tragedy, where the hero is brought low by his flaws, which are in fact the same characteristics which made him a hero in the first place.
Hegseth and his ilk take the wrong message from the movie. It’s not that Gen. Patton was flawed, but that those woke pussies like Eisenhower shouldn’t have insisted on reigning in his manly manliness. If only such a man were given the opportunity, the US could have defeated Germany two years earlier by ignoring what that prima donna Montgomery wanted to do, and then rolled over the Soviets, taken Moscow, and forestalled the Cold War. The moral of the story is that you should prance around in jodhpurs with ivory-handled pistols slapping sense into the weak sods with PTSD and winning victory after victory by virtue of flawless grooming standards.
I could see a situation where they want to be able to beat the snot out of someone under the guise of ‘hazing’ and not have to face consequences.
Um, there’s a good chance that, with the self-awareness that you’ve shown here, you’re probably far more qualified to run DoD.
Which is made rather less impressive by the fact that Patton was not involved with the Italian campaign in any way whatsoever. The only time Patton and Mauldin were even in the same theater in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations was in Sicily. Mauldin wasn’t in North Africa, and Patton went from North Africa to Sicily to England to Northern France while Mauldin went from Sicily to Italy to Southern France.
And to quote Bill Mauldin himself on Patton:
In a 1989 interview, Mauldin said, “I always admired Patton. Oh, sure, the stupid bastard was crazy. He was insane. He thought he was living in the Dark Ages. Soldiers were peasants to him. I didn’t like that attitude, but I certainly respected his theories and the techniques he used to get his men out of their foxholes.”
I would take anything from the movie Patton with an enormous grain of salt for an accurate portrayal of the man, though as one of Patton’s Biographers Carlo D’Este put it, it’s a portrayal that the actual Patton would have loved. The movie was based heavily upon Omar Bradley’s memoirs, A Soldier’s Story, and Omar Bradley was the movie’s chief military advisor. Omar Bradley, is, unsurprisingly, the true hero of the story, portrayed as a level-headed, compassionate skilled military officer as opposed to Patton’s hot-headedness, slave driver mentality ready to sack his subordinates at a moment’s notice.
Bradley deeply personally disliked and never understood Patton, and contrary to the “G.I. General” that he liked to portray himself as, Bradley sacked his subordinates left and right, often for very poor reasons, see for example his relief of the commander of 1st Infantry Division, Terry de la Mesa Allen “because Bradley felt that his continued command of the division was making it unmanageably elitist” and the Normandy Campaign, where Bradley dismissed Divisional commanders by the droves. By contrast, contrary to what one might glean from the movie, Patton sacked exactly one of his subordinates for cause - Orlando Ward - and only after giving him two prior warnings.
Which is a very good thing and demonstrates that the top leadership at the Pentagon at least is still taking their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and remain nonpartisan and apolitical seriously, unlike our Orange Clown in Chief or his Secretary of Defense War.
I don’t think the historical accuracy (or lack thereof) of the movie is relevant to using its portrayal of Patton as a lens through which to consider Hegseth’s “Warrior Ethos” speech. Especially given the giant flag backdrop on stage.
From what I saw (extended clips) not only was the silence stony (not even cloth rustling from people shifting, no coughing, nothing) but it was throwing off both the speakers who are so used to the crowd feedback it’s practically punctuation for their speeches.
The term “malicious compliance” comes to mind.
The MAGAs depend on reaction, positive or negative doesn’t matter. They don’t know what to do without it.
My completely “random person on the internet opinion” is that what makes a military person a great success in actual war is often completely different than what allows a military man to advance in rank and become a top general/admiral/etc. in peace time. Certainly, there are things tolerated in war that are not in peace, and in a war like WWII standards in some areas are even more lax. There’s much more focus on results. Patton wasn’t the only prominent military leader in WWII that did things that likely would have seen him booted out in peacetime. (MacArthur and Boyington come to mind).
Also, as my uncles who were island-hopping marines in WWII pointed out to me: grooming standards are one of the first things to go in actual combat. Hygiene standards - the things that actually keep you healthy - are a priority, yes. Whether or not you’ve shaved this week, or how long your hair is, or how dirty/worn your uniform is takes a back seat when you’re actually under fire for days at a time. Come to think of it, my uncles who fought in Europe in WWII said much the same thing. This focus on surface appearances just show how unqualified the current administration is. They want shiny toy soldiers, not real military personnel actually doing their real jobs.
They say, oh, it’s stealth. I say that’s not stealth. An ugly ship is not necessary in order to say you’re stealth.
I had the impression that stealth wasn’t ever high among T’s values.
It’s actually something he values very highly. Of course, unlike the rest of us, he thinks it’s the past tense of steal.
Oh God, that movie Patton strikes again. Nixon watched it twice while he was making up his mind to invade Cambodia.