Talk:George S. Patton/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Awards and decorations

The listing for the US Army does not follow the order of precedence: The Mexican Service Medal is out of place, as is the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal. Please refer to the HQDA order of precedence [1] for the correct order of precedence. Needless to say that the JPG is also wrong. Thanks.

Why nothing on the gap after Sicily?

As is well known, Patton was not given a combat command between the Sicily campaign and the campaign after the Normandy landings (of couse he was not involved in the landings themselves).

There is mention in the article of the use that "fear of Patton" was to the allies in keeping the Germans concerned about where he might appear - but he would have been rather more use in the field.

For example, the American commanders in the mainland Italian campaign were not close to being the equals of Patton.

Was it really the slap that caused Patton to be denied an operational command in this period? If so who was behind all the press attention this got?

I admit that I am British and, therefore, may find it hard to understand the American view of the matter (after all in the First World War Britsh troops with shell shock were sometimes shot - so a slap would have been getting off rather light) even today (sixty one years after World War II) a certain amount of physical abuse, although by N.C.O.s not commanding Generals, is the norm in the British army (although the public's attitude to this may be changing).

The lack of Patton cost thousands of allied troops their lives in the Italian campaign. A commander of Patton's type may be unpopular with some troops - but fewer will die under him. Men die of delays and incompetance more than they die of aggression.

Paul Marks.

Paul - Welcome. With your enthusiasm, I suggest you get a logon id (not necessary to edit, but useful for communications), be bold and start editing. But also we aware of the wikipedia goal of neutral point of view. I suspect there will be some healthy dialog with some of the other editors. John (Jwy) 18:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Film

Some of the "facts" stated in the article, such as "In a play on his nickname, troops joked that it was 'our blood and his guts'" seem to be derived more from the movie "Patton" than real life. Editors should remember that the movie is based on a true story. Not everything in the movie is factual.


Shouldn't Patton link to here instead of a movie about him?

I see thats a very old unsigned comment, but it makes a very good point. I will go ahead and make the redirect. -Husnock 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
In the movie section, the link Patton does not link to the film "Patton" -anon user 18Jul05
Fixed it -Husnock 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

By November 23, however, Metz had finally fallen to the Americans, the first time the city had fallen in nearly 1,500 years.

Corrected this in the article. During the Franco-Prussian War, Metz was surrendered to the Prussians by Marshal Bazaine on October 27 1870. --Kudz75 06:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I corrected a passage about the Ardenne Offensive. It was the last major Germand Offensive, not the last one. That honour goes to Operation Frülingserwachen. --Ebralph 12:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Son

Should there be mention of his son, also George S. Patton, also a Major General of armor?

- Maybe: George S. Patton III? -Husnock 14:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) I agree an article should be created.

The son of George S. Patton, Jr. was actually George S. Patton, IV. The first G. S. Patton (1833-1864) was the Civil War officer, the second George William Patton (1856-1927)(changed his name in 1868 to George S. Patton in honor of his late father), the third is G. S. Patton, Jr. (1885-1945) (old Blood and Guts himself) and the fourth (1923-2004) was a decorated Korea and Vietnam veteran. G. S. Patton V carries on the family name. MikeMullins 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article bias

this article is awfully biased. He lost a few battles for god sakes!

And he certainly didn't lead the British in 1917! The very idea!!:<)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 17:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heh, about as ridiculous as the idea that Monty won the Battle of the Bulge, or that Market Garden was 90% successful. -Joseph 19:02, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

MWAK, the difference is that Monty made the claims about winning the Battle of the Bulge and That Market Garden was 90% successful. Wikipedia quotes Monty and does not claim the two to be facts. Patton did not lead British tanks at this battle, he lead US tanks and I have edited the article to reflect this.

The article starts off with extreme bias, "the vast majority of his soldiers loved him for what he was—a pure and ferocious warrior." Did we take a poll? Was it an unbiased, random selection poll? How are we defining "pure", here? -Harmil 15:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The article does not show bias. At many WWII reunions Army veterans will brag "I rolled with Patton". Patton was loved by his troops because he was not a "CP" commander and led from the front. Patton also took care of his troops by giving 3rd Army soldiers longer furlough times and better mail service. Many books such as Victor Hanson's "Soul of Battle" provide evidence that Patton had a good relationship with those he commanded. -etalian
really? My dad spent some time in 3rd Army during WWII before his division was moved to 9th Army and has said on many occasions that Patton was far from loved by his troops. Bradley usually got that accodlade. Patton himself was quoted as saying 'so long as they fear me' in response to the suggestion that he wasn't beloved of his men.--Lepeu1999 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. Bradley specialised in being loved (and undermining other people behind their backs - he spread stories that both Patton and MacArthur where mentally unsound).

However, Patton was the better soldier. People who make it their main objective to make themselves popular (partly by running other people down) only have a limited amount of time for other tasks.

That, of course, includes me - Patton would not have bothered to attack Bradley (he had more important things to do).

Paul Marks.

Explanation for move

"George S. Patton" actually generates more hits than "George Patton" on Google, and a lot of people actually do know his middle initial. -Joseph 14:34, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back. Currently, George Patton is generating more hits (about 10% more) and, AFAIK, we only include the middle initial if it's for disambiguation or the person is generally always known by it. Oberiko 23:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think 10% is enough to justify it. He signs his name that way, the Army identifies him that way, and we can't keep changing it around for monthly fluctuations. -Joseph (Talk) 05:30, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

SecurityFocus cite

On 01 Nov 2004, this article was cited in a SecurityFocus article on phishing. Securiger 06:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What The Other Writer Doesn't Want you To Know.

It is theorized that Patton was in charge of a special unit that was full of only severly depressed or other un-mentaly sound peoples. He suposedly was so vicious that he lead those same people into a battle, which they had no will to fight; and they died.

If you are able to cite sources - then do so. Otherwise this smells POV.

Patton's views on Jews on the SS

In a TV programme, I read that Patton was anti-semitic and adored the SS. They also claimed that Patton rather wanted to ally the US with Germany to fight the "Judeo-bolshevik Sovjet Union". On the one hand, the source may not be a very good one, but on the other, they only reflected what was shown on the corresponding programme on TV. Sadly, I missed the TV show itself. The show was to be shown on German state TV, which is known for the reliability of their information. So, before I edit the article with something highly controversial like that, as I think this should be mentioned for the sake of resolving this highly legendary figure, I would like to verify all this. --Predator capitalism 23:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, simply put, Patton wasn't exactly what you would call "sane". Although he was a good general he had some very, very, odd views about life.
As a WWII historian and member of the US military, I am a little bit pro-Patton. I dont know about the Jewish stuff. But, I have to say, Patton did get into a little bit of hot water about the SS. He did say, on several occasions, they were excellent troops (he was mianly talking about the Waffen-SS though, not the Allgemeine/Secret Police/Concentration Camp guys). He also had a good friend and horse riding partner who was a former SS Colonel. Patton's admiration for the SS spilled over a bit to his views on nazis and villifcation of the SS may have been one of the reasons he said the Nazis were just like any other political party. Its a deep subject, indeed, into what he was thinking and his views on the world in general. -Husnock 15:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Patton made some very antisemetic remarks in the closing days of the war, finding concentration camp victims to be "lower than animals," and that naziism should remain in Germany after the war, among others. I recently rewrote the section on U.S. 761st Tank Battalion to reflect his racist views concerning black soldiers. I think something similar should be entered here, with the antisemtic remarks addressed as well. Im thinking under a new subheading? Patton's Prejudices?Ken Albers 20:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please include the context of the quote. Patton stated the inmates in the camps were reduced to a state that was 'lower then animals' by the conditions and circumstances of the camps. There is no doubt Patton shared the prejudices of many Americans of his time and class but let's not distort things. I am not a Patton apologist by any means nor do I think he was a second Alexander as do many of his fans, but let's keep things accurate. --Lepeu1999 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Patton held views that were common in the US at the time. To apply today's standards is a bit on the ridiculous side. It is irritating that one a person hold a view that is not popular, several people look to a "mental illness." To suggest that Patton suffered autism without offering evidence does not belong in a scholarly article. Patton held views that were quite common among the WASP population of the US. His views on communism were consistent throughout his life and reflected a view that was held by many.


Quite so. There was also a claim of "brain damage" in the article (from some writer or other) actually the turn the Third Army made to deal with the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge offensive was a master display of TECHNICAL army work - it was brain work (a task that Ike and the others thought impossible in the time Patton said he would do it).

As for racialism.

Patton was almost as racialist as Winston Churchill - who also made these sorts of comments (and worse).

There seems to be an inablity to understand that almost everyone was racialist back then - that does not mean they wanted to put anyone into gas chambers.

By the way some of own family were killed by the Nazis.

Paul Marks.

Movie section

Why such a long section on Patton, the movie here, when it has its own article? I suggest this should be cut down considerably, and merged into that article. I note that the last paragraph of this section isn't even about the movie, it just veers off into further George S. editorialisation. Alai 29 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change if you think it's a good idea. I agree with the proposal, as long as you leave enough of a "stub" left to point the reader to it. Hal Jespersen 29 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The reason I said Western Europe is because that includes Italy, France, and Germany, so saying "Italy and Western Europe" is wrong. It probably should be Sicily rather than Italy to avoid confusion and actually Western Europe doesn't include Czechoslovakia. But anyway, I think it's a mistake to include a detailed list of commands in the first paragraph. Mentioning his paper army but not his World War I service is an example of imbalance that this leads to. Hal Jespersen 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Isnt Italy in Southern Europe?? Most folks in the US associate West Europe as England and France, Central Europe as Germany, Austria, Switz, etc, Eastern Europe as former Soviet Bloc and Southern Europe as Italy, Sardina, Sicily, etc. Also, in WWII Italy and France were two very different campaigns and should be mentioned separately. Thats why I wrote it that way but it is certianly open to a rewrite. -Husnock 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You can follow the link to see the list of countries Wikipedia recognizes as Western Europe. But my point is that the first paragraph should not get into that level of detail. If I see no significant comments posted here after a while, I'll compress it down. Hal Jespersen 20:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the link to Southern Italy! But, yes, conpress the opener would not hurt. -Husnock 20:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Death

Since I know that there's a lot of editing going on with this page, I'll defer to the more active editors, but note that there are currently three different places where his death is mentioned. Some cleanup is warranted. Here are some factoids: accident was on 12/9. Two-vehicle convoy left Bad Nauheim at 9am. Driver PFC Horace Woodring in 1939 Cadillac Model 75 with Patton and Hap Gay. Accident happened at 11:45 in the Mannheim suburb of Käfertal, hit by 2.5-ton truck driven by T/5 Robert L. Thompson. As Patton lay paralyzed and bleeding from his forehead, he said "This is a helluva way to die." Gay and Woodring uninjured because they saw the accident coming and braced themselves; Patton looking out the window was oblivious. Died in Heidelberg with wife present, 17:55 12/21. Source Carlo D'Este, Patton, A Genius for War. Harper Collins, 1995. Hal Jespersen 17:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Trimmed the death accounts to ONE, here is a paragraph on the consipracy theories. Some conspiracy theorists pose that the driver operating the truck was ordered to hit Patton's car because of the belief that he was going to run for President when he came back to the United States, or because of his quarrels with occupation policies such as the Morgenthau Plan.[2] .Most historians, however, firmly believe that Patton’s death was nothing more than a tragic accident. It needs references to hold up to NPOV on the main page. Mytwocents 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded an image for General Patton's tombstone which is being utilized here Luxembourg American Cemetery and Memorial. Feel free to edit the file to fit the needs of the wiki. Also, if anyone would like to support this wiki I created, I'd appreciate that too!TchussBitc 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Assignments

Is it really "coming soon"? If not, that section should be removed. Al 12:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Racism

Reading the quotes, I am unsure as to whether this is out and out racism. I have changed the wording to "attitude", as in using this word, the reader can make up his own mind. We always have to be careful when using the word racism/racist with respect to an individual, as it is rather a charged word. Naturally, if a person is a racist, the word should be used. However, in Patton's case, I think he would be trying to get them to perform well by any means, for him and for their people as a whole. (Note that the word negro was definitely not racist in the 1940s) He was also not one to mince words. Wallie 14:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

George Patton wasn't any more Racist than any other persons in his era. For example, His family founded the community of San Marino, California, and they established Racial Covenants in all of the land deeds. George wasn't happy about it, but his partners insisted that he conform with wnat was considered normal in rural/suburban California.

CORNELIUSSEON 16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ardennes Offensive

There is a long quote that is almost identical on another website. I will try to clean it up soon, but I would like to know who copied whom? www.reference.com/browse/wiki/George_S._Patton

Wayne

check the bottom of that reference.com page. It says: Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors - Ray Barker 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

His Accident.

What happened in that fatal car accident.

Regarding that, I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of the conspiracy theories surrounding his death, as it rife in the internet and some among some historians.141.157.220.233 01:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There isn't much basis for them. There was a car accident.....what else do you want? DMorpheus 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why isnt War Crimes that happenned Under him, listed on his Page!

C'on, lets not hite the truth, we know all nations in WW2(and WW1 for that matter) commented War Crimes, lets not be bias, im an american and i know my own country comented war crimes(like every other country), i know 2 war crimes that this general allowed to happen!

Nothing is stopping you from adding this content if you have the facts. DMorpheus 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Patton convinced Congress to organize Armored Divisions?

I never heard that one before. Anyone have a source? What's Congress got to do with what types of units the Army organizes? I admit I am a bit skeptical of this statement. DMorpheus 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congress gets involved the same way as it does with most any military purchase, they control the money which is appropriated. Granted back then the various service secretaries had more lattitude than now but Congress often got involved. Needless to say that organizing and maintaining an armored division is expensive enough Congress would have to be involved. AM2783 )0:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Patton's problems with humor, his image, and the press

The last paragraph in this section is just oozing cynicism. Is there a source that someone can quote? Otherwise it seems pretty non-NPOV. Secretagentwang 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Education & Humor

I made a few edits to the Education section - to the Olympic entry. I reshaped the basic entry for clarity and brevity. Some of the language was a bit effusive & I toned it down a bit. I made an additional change to the section dealing with Humor re the 2 pistols. Patton did not carry a pair of .45's. For most of the war he carried a single Colt .45 and then later a Colt .45 and a S&W .357 magnum revolver. Both were chromed and had Ivory handles.--Lepeu1999 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is correct, but the unusually late date Patton learning to read seems at odds with the him being from a wealthy Massachusetts family. Compare the following:

The Pattons were an affluent family. As a boy, Patton was introduced to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the Bible, and the works of William Shakespeare.

and

Patton was an intelligent child, intensively studying classical literature and military history from a young age.

versus

He learned to read at a very late age as a child having never seen a printed page until starting school at the age of twelve...

It's hard to believe that a boy from a wealthy family at the beginning of the twentieth century would not see a printed page until age twelve. Maybe these factoids are conflating Patton with his grandfather (who was also named George).

children

no info about them !?!? --Joe dude 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this odd as well - I was trying to find info on his son, who was a troop leader in Vietnam and retired as a general - hopefully someone can mention that he at least had children...Michael DoroshTalk 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote attribution

Did Patton really say "Lead me, follow me, or get the hell out of my way"?

I doubt it; he wasn't much of a follower. It is a variant of a common saying in the US Army and elsewhere - "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way". DMorpheus 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Patton returned

to his southern California, home region for a few days at the end of the war. While in the area, he was given a heros welcome. Thousands turned out to see and hear him in Pasadena and Burbank outdoor addresses. It wasn't just the soldiers in his command who heard the famous "profanity".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuetralwordman (talk • contribs) .

Patton's "diseases"

Patton had Dyslexia and ADD. It was never attributed to him because they were not "discovered" until after his death. (DUHH) (Patton: Man behind the legend)? Steve Delrogs

If they were not diagnosed it seems a bit much to claim he had these conditions. DMorpheus 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I fucking hate it when people post humanously diagnose diseases to people. In this era, we're expected to believe that everyone from Abraham Lincoln to Winston Churchill had some form of phyciatric illness...:rolleyes:. It's speculation at best, outright bullshit at the worst. 141.157.220.233 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Stanley Hirshson wrote a book on Patton called General Patton: A Soldier's Life. In this book he addresses the topic of Patton's supposed dyslexia and ADD. He discounts the argument the he had dyslexia on the basis that Patton was read to and never saw a printed page until the age of twelve. His only symptom throughout his life was poor spelling. MikeMullins 20:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Patton did suffer from many symptoms of dyslexia. Hyperactivity, moodswings, and feeling of inferiority are all syptoms of dyslexia. Patton's athletic ability and energetic style os leadership are examples of Pattons hyperactivity. The idea that Patton suffered from an inferiority complex is also not to far fetched. People with inferiority complexes often feel the need to over compensate and present them selves in a posotive confident manner, this would explain why Patton practiced his war face in the mirror, placed oversized insignia on his tanks & carried around an ivory handled pistol. It may also explain why he had such a hard time dealing with critisism, and why Patton was so apauled by the cartoons depicting him negativly. Gregor Vincent 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you a physician or psychiatrist? Did you examine Gen Patton? If not, are you aware of any such diagnoses? If not, shouldn't we forget about this speculation? DMorpheus 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of posthumous diagnoses either, but on the other hand D'Este's book was far better than Hirshson's. Hirshson's assertion that Patton's oratory was to blame for to war crimes agianst the Italians was sloppy at best, and rather hypocritical of Hirshson to condemn Patton's criticism of the post-war occupation of Germany, which involved far worse Allied war crimes against the Germans. He also makes too much of Patton's anti-Semitism which, without condoning it, was unsurprising for someone with Patton's background, attitude and worldview and didn't really influence his opposition to denazification as much as respect for the German people and a legitimate fear of rising Soviet world power. 67.22.42.138 09:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Patton's dyslexia symptoms are a matter of public record and deserve to be mentioned. There is speculation, and then there is speculation...in this case, Patton himself admitted to the symptoms "I have problems with letters..."Michael DoroshTalk 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Patton saber

It seems to me that to historians and other Wikipedia readers that Patton is remembered far more for his design of the now-famous U.S. Army Model 1913 cavalry saber than he is for once holding the title Master of the Sword. While important to his biography and notable as a personal achievement, this academic title should not overshadow his much more historically significant contribution to saber design, an effort that resulted in a saber that bears Patton's own name today. For that reason, I suggest that the subtitle of this section retain its focus on Patton's saber contribution, and secondarily on his less-important academic award. Jack Bethune 12:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the spelling back to "saber". Saber is the more common US usage, and we are after all referring to a US weapon, designed by a US officer. Google gives 1,740 hits for "Patton saber" and 370 for "Patton sabre". In US Army nomenclature it was a 'Sword' so that is no help. DMorpheus 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for correctly editing my terminology. I do agree with your reasoning and, being American, I automatically wrote "saber" initially but felt the need to defer to Wikipedia's apparent slant towards British usage. My mistake. Regarding actual U.S. Army terminology, however, it's interesting to note that, soon after its adoption, the Model 1913 cavalry "sword" was renamed a "saber," a designation that became official U.S. Army terminology thereafter. Thanks again for your thoughtful addition. Jack Bethune 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Just came across the manual for the weapon, where it is referred to as a "saber" throughout. I agree, wikip[edia has a strong British slant - not sure why. But this should settle it. DMorpheus 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

General Leclerc

I was wondering whether there was a reason to list General Leclerc as Marshal Philippe de Hauteclocque ("Leclerc") in this article. Of course de Hauteclocque is his real name, but he was known as Leclerc during the war and is named so in most histories I've ever read. In 1944, the year concerned with this entry he was a general, the title of marshal being awarded posthumously after WWII (I hadn't even known he became a marshal). Generally the habit is to list a person with the rank relevant to the date talked about. Anyhow, if no one objects I will change the name to General Leclerc (linked to his bio of course) in a few days.--Caranorn 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

"The first African American tank unit ... was assigned to Patton ... at his reluctant request.". What does a reluctant request mean? If he asked for it we can assume he wanted it. If not then it's much simpler to say "...was assigned to Patton.". DJ Clayworth 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the following text concerning the slapping incident.

This is particularly ironic in the case of Private Kuhl, who was absent without leave from his unit, had reported himself to the field hospital without having been sent back by a medic, and was exhibiting symptoms consistent with a malingering technique involving ingesting GI soap. Nor was this Kuhl's first attempt to avoid hazardous duty; he had tried the same stunt before. Under the Articles of War in effect in 1943, General Patton would have been perfectly within his rights to have shot Kuhl out of hand for cowardice. Although Eisenhower stood by his longtime friend, the "slapping incident" had serious consequences for Patton's career.

I find this passage very problematic. 1) It looks like a personal attack on a single soldier. 2) The Articles of War part if retained would also require a quote I feel. 3) If this entire passage was retained a modern analysis might be required (US troops were often fighting under horrible conditions and apparently some Generals like Patton were totally ignorant of the fact, many forms of battle trauma were not known at the time and described as cowardice, continuing to do so today is inapropriate).--Caranorn 11:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)