Hear Mauldin tell it:
Thanks for this. The balls on Mauldin.
You dissin’ Douglas MacArthur? 
Patton summed it up himself:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
And it was all a big act, albeit a magnificently successful one. He was the plebe who had to stand in front of the mirror, channeling his Roman centurion and Confederate cavalier antecedents to overcome his squeeky voice and shy-boy aversion. Not a tough guy who happened to strap dead Villistas to the hood of his Ford, but the poser who had to. The guy who pimped his sister Nita to John Pershing, one of the most legendary cocksmen in Army history. That was the kind of officer who was born out of the Gilded Age and had the duty to save humanity from Nazism.
Still a paragon of humility compared to MacArthur and Ernest King, though.
If your life was on the line, it was probably because of Patton.
Patton was generally disliked by the ordinary soldiers who served under him. They felt, correctly to a large degree, that Patton was willing to spend soldiers’ lives to make headlines. The bitter joke in the Third Army was “Our blood. His glory.” Other generals may have moved slower than Patton but they generated fewer casualties.
On that note, there was Mark Clark, who killed of a few extra dogfaces just so Rome could be taken while there was still enough daylight left for the newsreel cameras, or Chesty Puller, who measured good old USMC aggressiveness by the number of his own second lieutenants who where being killed on a daily basis. Or the holy grail of the officer corps: George Marshal, who decided that American citizen-solders were, on the whole, so stupid that the best doctrine was to make a frontal assault to hold the enemy’s center, and if the logistics guys had done their jobs, apply pressure on the flanks. Doctrine on the equal of the genius of Austro-Hungarian Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf.
This is all from William Manchester and Paul Fussell, who, like Bill Mauldin, bucked the Stephen Ambrose/Tom Brokaw “greatest generation” myth that supposes one age of military leadership was any more wonderful than the Westmoreland one that came later.
So the Kobayashi Maru would have been right up his alley.
I’ve seen several cases of Generals who were beloved by their men but who were grossly incompetent at war. Most egregious was general Sir Charles Townsend, whose mismanagement of the Mesopotamian campaign led to the British army’s greatest defeat of WWI at Kut.
So Montgomery was actually only promoted to leader of the British armies in North Africa as the first choice William Gott was shot down and killed while returning to Egypt to take up his appointment (he actually survived the crash but the exit door was improperly fitted so he couldn’t get out and was killed when the crashed plane was strafed).
Many modern commentators say Montgomery was neurodivergent (but that kind of “diagnosis” of long dead historical figures is a bit dodgy IMO).
But (somewhat) in his defense prior to 1944 his reputation was built on being over cautious and unwilling to throw troops at a problem without thorough preparation, to ensure casualties are minimized (his experience in WW1 had a lot to do with this attitude). Mind you, IMO this makes the disasters of Market Garden and Goodwood even less justifiable.
In reading Patton’s wiki page I see he also proposed interning the Japanese people on Hawai’i before Pearl Harbor. Charming.
Easy to say now. Presentism will do that to 'ya.
For the record, my grandfather fought und MacArthur in the South Pacific, and he worshipped the man until the day he died. He claimed that he was the only general who cared about his soldiers’ lives.
Yeah I’d say if you averaged over all military history, as a grunt your chances of getting out alive are better with an aggressive utter unfeeling arsehole (who knows what they are doing) than with a beloved caring general who is frozen into inactivity by the fear of getting his men killed.
Particularly as for most of military history the vast majority of battle casualties occurred when one side was routed and had to retreat while being persued by the winning side.
Sun Tzu: “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”
In the film Patton, I always found the comparison between Patton and Omar Bradley to be interesting. Patton was very much a showman and a bit of a renegade when it came to following orders while Bradley was more a more reserved and politically savvy “logistics” general.
Bradley must have got results too because he ended up with five stars to Patton’s four.
I kind of suspect that Kirk’s response was in some sense, modeled after what they imagine Patton’s response to be.
And in a bit of macabre irony, his nickname had been “Strafer”.
Keep in mind that Bradley was a paid consultant to the film, and the film was partailly based on Bradley’s book. There has always been some concern if these items skewed the film to make Bradley look good (somewhat at Patton’s expense).
I sort of suspect that Marshall and Eisenhower recognized Bradley’s competence as an administrator as well as a general, and after D-Day, put him in charge of the 12th Army Group, and kept Patton where he would be at his best- in command of 3rd Army.