testtest

The Story of the Legendary General George S. Patton

nice read BUT leaves out his involvement with the Bonus Army. He and Eisenhower lead an engagement against civilians in a camp in Washington DC. allegedly killing several and maiming dozens.
 
nice read BUT leaves out his involvement with the Bonus Army. He and Eisenhower lead an engagement against civilians in a camp in Washington DC. allegedly killing several and maiming dozens.
That’s what I was going to mention. Don’t forget Douglas MacArthur, who, as Chief of Staff of the Army, changed into his service uniform so he could go down and lead the attack, not to mention carry it on across the river after the president ordered it halted.
 
Not many accounts mention his high pitched voice, this article did. The voice was one of the reasons the high command only allowed him to return once, to LA, to speak publicly after the war. The hierarchy felt the voice would have been a turn off to the people during the war if he returned to speak like other generals did. The article is a good overview.
 
I have read a lot about Patton. There is no doubt that he was an incredible combat leader. I have come to the conclusion that he was a born killer, and I think this is why he thrived in war. The military gave him direction and focus, and war satisfied his needs. Did we need a man like Patton? Yes, I think he was a man for the times. He was ruthless, fearless, and struck fear in the German command. I am not sure anyone else could have pulled off the push though Europe quite like he did. He preferred a direct fight and hated all the prancing around and political maneuvering. He would have pushed though Germany right into Moscow, routing all the communist on his way. He may have been right about too. He died soon after the war in an auto accident that has been the source of much controversy. He had made lots of enemies and that included the Soviets. But, in the long view of things it may have been a blessing as he would have hated the "cold war" politics.
 
Thanks for the article. I have always been fascinated with General Patton at least since I first saw that George C Scott movie as a kid. Anyway, I have a question, of all the General officers that have served since WW2, who would you say has been the closest in terms of combat effectiveness to Patton? Setting aside politics and just getting down to a General that knew how to win a battle and advance, leading from the front so to speak. Does a General like that even exist anymore? Was it even true of Patton?
 
I am a big fan of Gen. Patton and feel like if we prosecuted Iraq and Afghanistan with the type of force Patton would’ve exerted, rather than letting the news media run the Pentagon, the results would have been very different.

Having read Patton’s memoirs, I don’t think he’s given nearly enough credit for his intelligence, nor his contribution to modern warfare.

Patton utilized troops mounted in automobiles rather than horseback in the pursuit of Pancho Villa. The cavalry would be forever changed and the “blitzkrieg” was born.

General Patton was also heavily involved in designing the tank. While assigned in France, he worked closely with the French military who had already embarked upon “the land ship” project.

Patton essentially staked his career on his belief that armored vehicles were the future of the modern battlefield.

BTW, he was an amazing athlete as well; competing at a world class level in pentathlon, fencing and polo.
 
nice read BUT leaves out his involvement with the Bonus Army. He and Eisenhower lead an engagement against civilians in a camp in Washington DC. allegedly killing several and maiming dozens.
Those civilians were actually WWI veterans that were protesting lack of veteran benefits, and their protest had turned into more of a riot. They had also set up a large encampment near the capital building. Both Ike and Patton were ordered to help break it up. This was back in the early 1920's. Patton felt for the veterans, but at the same time he had to follow orders from his superiors. It was a low point in his career, but not of his making. Thank the politicians for that.

Anyone interested in really learning about George S. Patton should read, "A Genius for War", by Carlo D'Este. It is the only authorized biography of Patton and is an excellent read. Gen. Patton has always been a hero of mine since I was a kid. I am also of the school that Patton was murdered by political forces in the United States. Another good read is, "Target: Patton", by Robert K. Wilcox. The forward was written by Charles M. Province, The George S. Patton, Jr. Historical Society, and Paul E. Vallel, Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.) wrote, "A terrific book...providing new evidence and raising serious questions."
 
Thanks for the article. I have always been fascinated with General Patton at least since I first saw that George C Scott movie as a kid. Anyway, I have a question, of all the General officers that have served since WW2, who would you say has been the closest in terms of combat effectiveness to Patton? Setting aside politics and just getting down to a General that knew how to win a battle and advance, leading from the front so to speak. Does a General like that even exist anymore? Was it even true of Patton?
None have led from the front, but the only one that comes close would be Gen. Norman Schwartzcoff.
 
Thanks for the article. I have always been fascinated with General Patton at least since I first saw that George C Scott movie as a kid. Anyway, I have a question, of all the General officers that have served since WW2, who would you say has been the closest in terms of combat effectiveness to Patton? Setting aside politics and just getting down to a General that knew how to win a battle and advance, leading from the front so to speak. Does a General like that even exist anymore? Was it even true of Patton?
Though the movie was good, it actually gave short shrift to Patton. The credits say it was based on Bradley's book, A Soldiers Story, and Patton: Ordeal and Triumph by Ladislas Farago. In reality, maybe 10 percent was taken from the book by Farago and the rest from Bradley's book. George C. Scott refused to accept the Oscar for Best Actor because he felt that the screenwriters and producers failed to grasp the complexities of the man and his abilities by largely ignoring Farago's book and other sources which Scott had studied.
 
If I remember correctly when I did a paper in school, some of the material I found said that Mr. Scott did a lot of background work before he did the movie to learn about the man. Mr. Scott had indicated that he felt that the U.S. government and the Soviets worked together covertly to get rid of Patton, because of his beliefs about Stalin and Russia in general. Which is why he wanted our boys to push on through to Moscow and all the way to the sea. Could have been an interesting world right now had that happened.
 
I had five uncles on my dad’s side (and others on my mother’s) that served in WW2. One of them was in the 3rd Army under Patton…. Utah Beach thru Dec 45. He was an NCO, and had nothing good to say about Patton. Well after the war ended (and before Patton was killed, of course), he was demoted one rank because Patton observed him driving his truck without wearing his helmet.
Didn’t make sense to my uncle, but I’m sure Patton patted himself on the back that night.

He may have been a good General for the country but not convinced he was a great leader for his men.
 
Lt. General Puller USMC. Promoted during the Korean War to BG and appointed Assistant Division Commander of the 1st Marine Division.
I would agree with you 100%. "Chesty" was one hell of a man and Marine! I based my reply on a high ranking general leading an army in combat. Not taking anything away from "Chesty" Puller, but for his service during WWII and Korea he was a LtCol. and Colonel, not a general officer leading an army.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CEE
I would agree with you 100%. "Chesty" was one hell of a man and Marine! I based my reply on a high ranking general leading an army in combat. Not taking anything away from "Chesty" Puller, but for his service during WWII and Korea he was a LtCol. and Colonel, not a general officer leading an army.
Which is why I mentioned he was a BG in Korea in 1951. Not commander of a field army for sure, but a GO during was nonetheless.
 
Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “The Story of the Legendary General George S. Patton” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/the-story-of-the-legendary-general-george-s-patton/.

Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “The Story of the Legendary General George S. Patton” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/the-story-of-the-legendary-general-george-s-patton/.

Need to read the book, 48 Hours to Hammelburg, by Charles Whiting. Patton sent men on a dangerous 60 mile mission to rescue American POWs, the only time he ever did so. This is because his son-in-law was believed to be held there. But the winners write the history books and for those who died on that mission wouldn't believe Patton was so wonderful to get them killed for his son-in-law.
 
Back
Top