The movie may be evidence of the talents of George C. Scott or Franklin Schaffner or Francis Ford Coppola but George S. Patton had no part in making it.
That same Patton 360 talks about the invasion of Sicily, when the aircraft carrying the paratroops came in directly over the invasion fleet and the fleet units panicked and shot up their own aircraft, killing many Americans.
This is portrayed in the program as nobody’s fault and “inevitable” despite the fact that, as far as I know, it did not happen at any other American invasions.
IMHO someone should have made clear either to route the aircraft differently or to inform the navy they were friendly. That someone should have been the person in charge.
Patton was in charge.
^
Harold Alexander, commander 15 Army Group was in charge.
There are suggestions that when Patton did so he himself was also suffering from PTSD – and that was what caused him to react the way he did.
Well, considering the movie was made in 1970 and Patton died in 1945 …
You’re probably thinking of his beach landing in North Africa.
Two things to add.
One, whether he was a great general or not, he was colorful. There’s something to be said for colorful. Not everyone gets inspired by colorful, but many do, and an inspiring figure can be more valuable as an equally-competent leader who doesn’t quite get the blood boiling the same way.
Two, the dreaded hygeine rules served the same purpose in Patton’s time as they do today: the more you look like a soldier, the better you’ll feel as a soldier. It’s a school of thought not everyone subscribes to, but it does have merit.
Heck, easiest way to understand this is personal experience: do you feel better going to a job interview wearing your best suit or a polo shirt and khakis? Or, lounging around all day in your boxers can be comfortable, but most (not all) people do not do their best work when they haven’t bathed for a couple of days and are wearing only a ratty t-shirt. Insisting that your soldiers mind their dress and hygeine can come off as being a martinet unless you have other skills to back it up-- and whether he was overrated or not, Patton most definitely had skills to back it up.
P.S. To echo the OP, Atkinson’s trilogy (still only two books, the third better come out soon!) is an absolutely fantastic read, some of the best war writing in decades.
Flash may look pretty but it accomplishes nothing. Some people may be impressed by surface flash but that doesn’t mean it has any real value - it just means these people have poor judgement skills.
To which I say bullshit. In my opinion, a dress code is for the benefit of the boss not to make the employee feel better. (You ever notice how the boss never has a set of rules on how he’s supposed to dress?) Wearing a necktie has nothing to do with fighting ability.
Here’s another experience: you just worked twelve straight hours doing so important job at work. You’ve finally finished and you know it’s some of your best work. You go to hand it to your boss and all he does is look at you and say your shirt is wrinkled.
What is the result? You realize your boss doesn’t have a clue about what’s important. Next time you won’t bother putting any extra effort into doing your job. You’ll just make sure to fool your boss by dressing up well.
Montgomery damn near did it all by himself.
And that gives a highly-ranked general an excuse to abuse an injured soldier? Nah, don’t think so. Not only is it morally wrong, but it’s bad for the morale of just about everyone. And, seeing as how Patton got in trouble for it, I’m probably not the only one who thinks so.
I knew a guy who served under Patton. This guy carried photos of Patton in his breast pocket. Thought the world of him. I asked him about the fatal car accident & the rumors that the US killed off Patton. This guy was convinced that the accident was a setup. He said Patton was ready & willing to continue on and take out Russia, but the president was too pussy to go for it, so it was decided Patton would be silenced.
Actually, he did it twice, from what I’ve read, and he didn’t get in as much trouble as he should have done. It was hushed up to some extent, I believe, to avoid bad publicity.
Where did I say it excused his actions? I was simply pointing out that that might have been the CAUSE. An explanation is not the same thing as an excuse.
Was Patton wrong to do so? Of course. At the same time, it’s been speculated that Patton too was suffering from what was then known as “battle fatigue”. It doesn’t make it right, it just might say why he was more likely to react in such a way.
Love Rhombus, I thought the second time he threatened to shoot someone? The guy had some SERIOUS issues. :eek:
Obeseus, no offense, but that sounds like bullshit. After all, Truman had no problem firing MacArthur when he wanted to invade China, and one could argue that MacArthur was even more popular than Patton.
From the books I read about WWII I would say Patton was a jerk. He fought the battles in a maner that would give him the best press. Did not appear to understand or care what happened to his men as long as he looked good. That was my impression from my reading over twenty years ago.
My old man knew Patton; served under him as a tank commander. He said that Scott’s performance in the movie was scary and spectacular. Scott nailed Patton perfectly in terms of mannerism, speech, etc. and he more than strongly resembled Patton.
Dad said that about 30 seconds into that opening speech, he felt like Scott/Patton was going to look down from the screen at him and yell, “Major, your hair’s too long. Get a goddamn haircut NOW!” 
Patton was a warrior from an old Southern military family. I can’t say that the man loved war, but he was trained in that discipline and this was his life’s work. Honor, duty to country, bravery was part of his creed. He has an extremely high standard that he expected all of his troops to live up to.
If Patton was born a Russian, he would of have been in the Soviet Army. If he was a German, he would of been in the SS or in the Weremacht (German Army, spelled wrong I am sure). Fortunately, the dude was on our side and did his job well.
Slapping that soldier was out of line, and Ike made him apologize for it. Patton should of seen that this was a brave soldier, who was in the shit too long and was sick (the soldier was also ill). Patton believed that any soldier who shirked duty should be executed.
Supposedly, Patton wanted to take the survivors of the German Army and invade Russia. I don’t know where he thought he was going to get healthy German soldiers from, since they were mostly all dead. By the Spring of 1945, Hitler was down to young teenagers and the elderly to defend the capital. The Germans literally fought to the last man in Berlin, running out of bullets before the surrender. Germany was ruined, over with, bombed out. Fucked.
Patton believed in reincarnation and thought that he was a soldier in anceint Europe, a Roman General or something to that effect. Again, I don’t know if he loved war, but he loved the pageantry of military life, and the glories of battle.
Patton was a fucking Klingon!
Citation on the slapping incidents.
Patton’s apparent rationale in the first incident was that he thought the soldier was shirking duty that other men faced. PTSD was not a diagnosis then – “shell shock” was the term of art, but many did not believe in it – and Patton was not a particularly subtle man.
What has always interested me was the rivalry between Patton and the British Montgomery. Monty was in charge of the british forces which were in Holland-his plan was to drive into north Germany via the flat plains of eastern Holland.
However, Monty was a guy who never attacked until he had superiority in all areas-men, materiel, etc.
Patton thought that attacking Germany through the Rhineland was the way to go-he claimed that he was held back, because gasoline (which his tank force needed) was diverted to Montgomery’s forces.
What do present day military historians say about this-was Patton correct?
After the war, Patton had a problem keeping his mouth shut-which was why he was shuffled off the a position in southern Germany. A while back, I read an odd little book (forget the title) which claimed that Patton’s death was not accidental-he was murdered on purpose. But I didn’t find the book all that convincing.
Thanks for the link Sailboat.
I can’t quite make up my mind on this. If Patton was encouraging morale by visiting sick or wounded troops slapping one was obviously wrong. And Patton wasn’t qualified to make a judgement if he was sick.
Yet Patton was effective as a general.
I really think he found his level however. I could not see him in Eisenhowers role.
I have heard the scenario raised that Patton would have been prepared to take the war to the USSR immediately. It would have been interesting (and I am sure we could have huge debates) about how it would have gone.
Stalin had huge manpower and the massive Stalin tank. The Allies had pretty weak armour in the Sherman but they had the bomb.
Ralph, I was typing while you were posting.
Getting superiority in material to me is the sign of a very good general.
I think both Patton and Montgomery were essentially ego maniacs and neither would ever admit they were wrong (and Montgomery was in a few cases such as Market Garden).
I can’t buy that Patton’s death was deliberte. It would be a very clumsy way to kill someone.