Would you have served with George S. Patton?

Are you insinuating that I respect the man? Heck no, you'd be a fool not to hate the man. I simply tried to put it into as simple a manner as possible.


I didnt say to aid the west either. I said he accepted their "Lend lease" because he was desperate for help during 1941. Im sure that soulless shell was grateful for that. They weren't as hostile after that and more or less were Allies of mutual benefits, per say.

 

Actually this is also close to the point I was making when I said that if the Germans had achieved the victory in Russia in 1941 (should have) and consolidated that victory with resourses and industrial capacity then WW2 would have been very different. Unfortunately the German High Command allowed a lunatic to run the show. Germany would not have been the unnanomous global power by 1945 but it would have been an undisputed Superpower.

The A-bomb would have been a major concern but basically once Russia fell, they could leisurely take and own Middle East and North Africa and holidays in the Mediterranian.

The largest long term threat would be insurgency due to the continued stupid mistreatment of populations based on ethnic/racial grounds. But then again the Russians suffered no lesser fate from their very own leader. Makes me curious to understand what they (the Russian people) thought was the difference. I'm sure the strong subserviant peasant background had a considerable influence but they had only recently had a major revolution so they know how to overthrow leaders they did not want/like.

 

Pehaps your right, they really didnt do much.

Did the United States declare war on Germany when Hitler attacked Belgium, Luxembourg, France? No, no and no.

Did GB or France declare war on Hitler when he took Rhineland, annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia? No

That's usually a good reason for war.

Well thank you for your change of heart.

These posts pretty much some up the numbers of books which you have read on the topic.

 

I think you quoted the wrong person Rule

 

Would I serve with Patton?

If I had a choice probably not.

 

I expect nothing less.

 

The Soviets made a considerable contribution, I'm simply pointing out the self serving emphasis behind it.

Nor did the USA negotiate to divy up Poland or decide which other countries were to be annexed without interference ie Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania.

The French arrogance in occupying German territory after WW1 had no small measure in helping Hitler inflame the animosity of German people to the other Western powers especially France. Not pre-empting what happened the deadly escalation of events in late 1939, I think it was acceptable for the German reoccupation of the Rhineland and reunification of Austria.

You might think that I am being a bit harsh on the French, saying they got off easy. But they surrendered in what 6 weeks? and then militarily (French Navy) became a limited instrument/threat against the other allies. Then, and here's the best part, after having been "occupied" by another power for 4 years they turn around and conduct themselves AGAIN in the very same jackboot manner amongst their colonies. Using a ready and convieniantly dispossable skill set in ex-SS troops.

Yes being attacked (the Soviets) is usually ample reason to defend yourself and reply to your aggressor in kind, I agree. Finland agrees, Poland agrees etc etc. Of course I made the mistake of saying :"they were only at war because they were attacked", they were already at war as an aggressor themselves.

No change of heart, but maybe I did under emphasis the value of their efforts were to the other allies. So yes you are right to point that out more strongly. But the value of it was simply a by-product not the focus. The focus was survival, then revenge and then the land-grab reward for the victor. The Russian soldier was ultimately the instrumentum vocale of a dictatorial regime, to be no less loathed, feared and killed as the Germans.

Do they, how so? I have no doubt there are many here that have a wealth of knowledge greater than mine on WW2. And I will admit to being a bit rusty with the WW2 stuff as I haven't read a great deal on the subject for maybe 20 years but it was a reasonable amount, not just John Wayne movies. It's just that I am interested in too many different things besides military history, I have a reading difficulty that makes me a slow reader (no sympathy required) and will never come close to reading everything I have wanted to. But a private library of about 2500 books,many of which would have had me shot in both totalitarian Germany and Russia, and split between fiction and non-fiction allows me to have an opinion (not always right). And sometimes the delivary could be could be less forceful, but I would say that applies to comments like "heads up the butt" or calling someone ignorant.

How many books were you predicting I had read BTW?

I probably wouldn't want to serve with Patton either, for all it's unique pitfalls I think I would prefer the jungle...less chance of the random artillery shell death etc and maybe comes down the individual skill a bit more..to quote Spencer Chapman "The Jungle is Neutral." an excellent book BTW. Time for another read maybe.

Cheers

 

nope,either run out of petrol half way to metz,or being sent on a half-arsed attempt to rescue his son in law,cheers.

 

No way !!!
His overblown ego puts me forcibly in mind of George Armstrong Custer, had he been born in Germany he would have been perfect SS material.
As a general he was possibly better than a Cadorna or Malmaison but that doesn't say much. He did well in the US Army, where he could afford to ignore logistics that were competently managed by others, but would have been a disaster in any other army.

His role in the Biscari POW massacre is also a big blak mark.

 

I dont want to hijack this thread any longer. If you want to continue this discussion feel free to start a new thread and I will contribute along with others

You already answered that, not very many in the last 20 years.


All the best.

 

I would, if I am tanker. No better general in the US Army appreciated the tank like Patton, and in spite of his reputation for recklessness, he believed in accomplishing his mission with the lowest losses of men possible. But the he also believed the way to win cheap victories was fight boldly, audaciously and focus on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight by imposing a higher tempo of operation than he was capable off and to terrorize him by hitting him with armor in unaticipated weakpoints in rapiid succession to crush his morale. Third Army had the highest kill: loss ratio not because it fought the tactical battles flawlessly, but because it avoid set-piece battles and played the Wehrmacht so badly that they usually either became demoralized and surrendered, or got cut down by superior firepower in disorganized little groups.

He was a very under appreciated general. I believe that he genuinely loved his man, but he had outlook of martial honor and glory that was more in line with the Illiad then 20th century society.

 

Lorraine Campaign: an Overview, Sept - Dec 1944

 

I would like to see those figures.

 

red coat
Lorraine Campaign was bad. But the First Army fought the Sigfried Line and Huergentwald.

M Kenny,
That was late when I typed it up. It did capture or kill ten enemy for everyone of its own, however, and that's not a bad record.

 

I have seen the claims and they simply do not add up. I think part of the problem is the large bag of POW's taken in the collapse in 1945 is included.
If I remember correctly the claims made by 3rd Army for German tanks destroyed is at least twice the total that Germany had on the whole of the Western Front. Presumambly none of the other Allied Armies got any!

 

Kenny,

You have just proved that I should install a breathalyser on my PC to prevent further posting after too much scotch. I gave off the impression that I would be enthusiastic about serving in a field army during WWII. Actually I would not "like" to serve anywhere during WWII. But in wars you go where you are told.

I would stand by the statement that Patton was not wasteful of the lives of his men in comparison to Hodge or Bradley. During the Battle of Hurtgenwald Hodge severely damaged two of the army's best divisions, the 1st and 9th and nearly destroyed two more veteran divisions, 4th and 28th, for a worthless piece of property. Patton's battle in Lorraine was bloody and messy, but he was fighting for an invasion route into Germany as old as history and his units, like the 35th and the 80th, did not suffer anywhere near that kind of damage sustained by the assault divisions in the First in Hurgentwald.

The Lorraine Campaign was also fought amongst ancient fortresses that dated back to the Roman Empire. Lorraine's defensive belt had been constantly upgraded since the 18th century to keep its weaponry abreast with modern technology by its German and French occupiers. Russel Weigley judged Lorraine the most heavily fortified sector on the German border eclipsing even the Sigfried Line.

No Allied General was keen on getting their men killed. In practice, Monty was probably the best General serve under as he was particularly frugal with the lives of his men and made few mistakes.

 

I am not rying to disparage Patton but if you accept the seriously inflated numbers claimed for 3rd Army then it follows that every other Allied Army in the West did very little.

 

Not at all. I don't accept those numbers and I know as well as you do that the Third Army's propaganda machine was extremely formidable. I was merely pointing out that he was not a poor general by any means and he did value the lives of his troops. He's logistical skills were probably no poorer than most Wehrmacht generals--the improvisions he made to supply his ambitious operations beyond the logistical capacity allocated to him is very reminiscent of German Army practices.

 

Me with Patton? Not in hell he treated his men like expandable toys. plus remember sicily anyone? My opinion he well never get my respect.