Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Would you have served with George S. Patton?

Discussion in 'What If - Other' started by D-Day Man, Sep 15, 2009.

  1. D-Day Man

    D-Day Man Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would've. He was a legendary general. He served in both world wars. He was truely a living legend.
     
  2. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,291
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Location:
    Alabama
    y'all have it.
     
  3. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,157
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Why not. He definitely knew what he was doing and what he wanted. Must say the US military campaigns in Europe and Africa might have looked a bit "weak" without him in WW2.... Just my two cents...
     
  4. john1761

    john1761 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    My father served in the ETO and said that when Patton's army group came through their area every one hid because of his habit of gang pressing any soldiers he could get his hands on.
     
  5. SOAR21

    SOAR21 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    43
    Sure. If I had my pick I'd choose anywhere the Americans fought, with the exception of Bataan, over any other army.

    Patton? Even better, long as I never encountered him face to face. Bradley would do just as well. I guess in 1944 being under Patton means being under Bradley by default anyway.
     
  6. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    139
    In WW2 you didn't get the luxury of choosing the general you would fight under.
     
    Blastmaster1972 and WotNoChad? like this.
  7. Rule303

    Rule303 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sure, it would have been the best chance of allied soldiers being allowed to shoot Russians.:p
     
  8. surfersami

    surfersami Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    32
    Is that statement politically correct?:D
     
  9. Totenkopf

    Totenkopf אוּרִיאֵל

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    89
    :confused:
     
    Sloniksp likes this.
  10. STURMTRUPPEN

    STURMTRUPPEN Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    4
    of course i would have liked to serve with patton
     
  11. Rule303

    Rule303 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sorry, you may be right. It should have said "Russian soilders":cool:
     
  12. WotNoChad?

    WotNoChad? Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    134
    :D

    Quite, otherwise the most famous WW2 Generals would have been staffers sitting around the WD in Westminster, or the Pentagon.
     
  13. Rule303

    Rule303 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    2
    Patton thought it might have been a good idea to rearm the Germans and take Russia. Actually Churchill was pretty sympathetic to that point of view as well.
     
  14. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    Fortunately, there were those above him who thought such statements were inappropriate when speaking of allies and relieved him of his duties.
     
  15. Richie B

    Richie B Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    26
    and arranged for the car crash - allegedly :D

    Regards

    Richie
     
  16. mikebatzel

    mikebatzel Dreadnaught

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    405
    No, I would not! My Uncle did, and I've seen what he had to say about the man. Patton was far more interested in how he would be remembered by history to give a damn about the troops under him.
     
    Jaeger likes this.
  17. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    No.
     
  18. Rule303

    Rule303 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some Ally. I think the Soviets where more the "Enemy-that-flew-under-the-radar" than an ally. I mean the war really kicked off with the Germans invading Poland....hhhmmm lets see, were the Germans alone on that little activity. Uhm, nope. Did the Soviets declare war on Germany when Germany attacked Belgium, Luxemberg, France. No, no and no. They were only at war when they were atttacked.

    The Soviets were no ones ally but their own. Basically the Soviets were lucky that the world was simply tired of war. Unfortunately for many central European countries, Patton wasn't listened to.
     
  19. Totenkopf

    Totenkopf אוּרִיאֵל

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    89
    Consider the relations between the West and the USSR. Were they hugging and kissing? No, nobody wanted anything to do with this Revolutionist state with a cruel man for a leader. Everybody was quite hateful of the Soviets during the 30s.

    Forward to the forties. Re-emerging Germany is knocking down the west one state at a time. Why should Stalin care? These governments were no friends of his and better yet, Hitler seemed to be friendly towards Stalin's regime. All is well.

    One year later Stalin is back stabbed by Hitler with a massive invasion. Im sure Churchill realized that the potency of Russia was their only hope of winning the war, USA and UK pledge to help Russia, with things looking bad Stalin accepts any help he can get. He puts aside differences with the west to Bring down Germany with a United Effort

    1942, it is clear the tides have turned in the Ease.

    1944, all hope is lost for the Germans, and the Russians are running towards Berlin. Overlord happen's so that the Soviets aren't in control of Europe.




    While Stalin wasnt too fond of the west, he cooperated fully to destroy the German's from the East and then eventually the west.

    Anybody thinking straight will agree that the Soviet's were the main reason that the Allies achieved victory over Germany. After all some 8 or 9 out of every ten dead Germans were in the east not the west. Stalin destroyed the Wehrmacht, while the Allies secured the territory that would have fallen to Stalin anyway.

    Your head Must be pretty far in your butt to doubt the Russian's part in the war effort.


    Most people agree that the German's had the best army in the world during 1943/44 so what if there was no Eastern front? What if they simply held their ground in Europe?
     
  20. Rule303

    Rule303 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    2
    I didn't say the Russians weren't helpful, I just said they helped themselves. I said that the idea of them being an ally is a very loose use of the term. I tend to think of them as the tolerated enemy. The beginning of your post even verifies my take that we and they were NOT friends.

    Certainly they were not friends, or (choking laugh) liberators of central European countries. Yes, your take on the magnanimous Stalin putting aside his differences to aid the West is quite historically generous. Make sure your rose coloured glasses don't get stuck while extracting your own head.
     

Share This Page