General George S. Patton was born 120 years ago today

[yarddog]

From what I've read just about everybody associated with the movie didn't like Patton and wanted portray him as a kook, especially George C. Scott.

Actually I think Scott liked Patton. I read an article about him right after the movie came out and George C. Scott said he wanted to portray Patton in a more favorable light than the directors wanted.

[Borges]

He wept on his 33rd birthday because WW1 had ended and he missed it. Kind of sad that he has to share a birthday with Alger Hiss.

[cgbg]

"The Speech" hangs on my wall.

Americans love to fight

Patton would be so disgusted with our decades of "peace protestors".

I know I am. :-)

[GB]

I don't know if anyone has ever heard a clip of the real Patton speaking, but he didn't sound anything like George C. Scott. Patton had a high-pitched, almost soft voice with a Southern accent.

Also, I think Omar Bradley, because of his reputation as a "caring general" and the "GIs' general," which was good P.R. but in reality was a bit overblown because in his own way he was as big an egomaniac and prima donna as some of the others, was very overrated.

[yarddog]

Yes Chesty was almost unbelievable. One like him only comes along every few hundred years or so.

From what I have read and seen on the "History Channel" he was really too agressive.

[Borges]

Scott's problem with Patton was the changes made to the original Coppola script which was trimmed and tightened by another writer (Edmund H. North). Coppola and North never actually met til Oscar Night. Scott accepted the role based on the original script. There was only one director (Franklin J Schaffner) and he was a WW2 Navy Vet.

[MikefromOhio]

We're gonna grab him by the nose, and we're gonna kick him in the ass....

[Borges]

Bradly thought that Cary Grant should have played him in the movie. He certainly didn't lack self regard.

[Terpfen]

I know who wrote A Genius For War. It's a good book, but I don't like how D'Este tries to reinforce popular history rather than try to actually recount it: I think he was more concerned with an academic recounting than a historical reporting, especially when it comes to the slapping incidents and Hammelburg. I'm supposed to think it was unforgivable for a general who cared about his soldiers to try to motivate two of them back into fighting shape, in an army that frowned on desertion? Come on.

I also don't think Patton was a headache. Managing Patton was very simple: give him what he needed to win, and he'd win. Eisenhower did not give Patton what he needed to win, and subsequently had problems with him. That's another thing that bothers me about print Patton biographies: I'm supposed to believe that Eisenhower is to be praised for rescuing Patton from... the media? For something like Knutsford to jeopardize Patton's command does not tell us about Patton, it tells us about Marshall and Eisenhower. It's wrong to put Patton in the same category as Montgomery: after all, Patton never set someone's uniform on fire while the person was still wearing it.

A Genius For War is good if you want to find out what the accepted history of Patton's involvement in WW2 is, but not so great if you want a critical analysis of how things turned out.

[GB]

Patton never played "the game" and wasn't politically correct before the term politically correct ever existed. Even in those days, that meant that a person might not have an easy row to hoe, regardless of his talents or track record.

[Moonman62]

George C. Scott was an excellent actor and I get the feeling he knew Patton would be the role of a lifetime. Therefore I think he suppressed his nutty leftism so as not to ruin the opportunity. Certainly, I think most people came away from the movie with a very positive impression of Patton. I'm reminded of All in the Family and Archie Bunker, and how Norman Lear and Caroll O'Conner were both extreme leftists who wanted to poke fun at conservatives, yet Archie Bunker ended up being a very popular and sympathetic character.

[Terpfen]

I have to disagree again. Patton was a team player; his criticisms of other officers comes from his diaries and letters home, not from confrontations. When he was given an order, he did it. He coordinated with bordering Armies when necessary: just because he didn't like 1st Army doesn't mean he didn't and wasn't willing to work with Hodges. Likewise, he hated Montgomery, but did a good job of coordinating and working with him in Sicily.

[PLMerite]

"He was a firm believer in Reincarnation. I wonder who he was reborn as?"


Judging by looks, possibly Maureen Dowd.

[Marine_Uncle]

"From what I have read and seen on the "History Channel" he was really too agressive."

How can a military leader be too agressive? Obtain the book Chesty. Read it and see if he was to agressive or like other fine leaders such as Patton realized one has little choice in war but to be as agressive and brutal but with a well laid out battle plan, to do ones best to kill the enemy and maintain ones own army as much in tack. War is hell. If our Marines say in Fallujah last year just farted around and did not seek and destroy the enemy, Fallujah today would still be the Saddmist/Zarqawi headquarters for the insurgency. General Matis understood quite well the need to aggresively go in and take them out. It required brutal fast moving superior fire power and the Esprit de Corps he knew existed in his Marines to brutally remove those butchers.

And surely our Army elements fought with the same bravery and aggresive spirit in their role during that battle.

If they just goofed around, we would have lost heaven only knows how many brave young soldiers and Marines.

[exdem2000]

What a great story. My grandfather was in the 16th Armored Division and was stationed at Ft. Knox before going over to Europe during WWII.

[yarddog]

I have already read "Chesty" thank you.

I don't know much about tactics and really, really admire Puller. I will say that other Marines thought he needlessly lost many a fine marine by being too aggressive in one battle. He just kept attacking until just about everyone was either dead or wounded. You got to admire his courage but I would think there actually are times when just attacking is not the best tactic.

[GB]

Patton was definitely a team player, he definitely followed orders and IMHO was the best combat general of the war and one of the best combat generals who ever lived. However, you cannot deny that he got himself into hot water an awful lot, not just in the press but with his superiors, because he had no concern for the political ramifications of his actions, he just wanted to lead men in battle, but IMHO World War II was the first war in which the political ramifications became a big deal because of the balancing act that had to be played with the allies, in particular the British. Did not Marshall himself tell Ike, when one of the "situations" involving Patton arose and Ike was wondering about whether Patton should be relieved, that basically what you saw was what you got with Patton, and that Ike needed to ask himself whether Patton's enormous talents as a combat leader were enough to overshadow the "situations" he kept getting himself into, sort of hinting between the lines that they were?

I think Patton was a maverick, compared to a lot of his peers, and I don't say that to denigrate him in any shape, form or fashion. And mavericks, even in World War II, had a tough row to hoe as I said. Look what happened to Terry Allen, who got royally screwed over by Omar Bradley and Beetle Smith.

[GB]

Let me follow up, because I called Patton a team player and a maverick, and it sounds like those are contradictions. I think he was a maverick as far as his general outlook on things and as far as not looking fondly on playing the political game with the allies. But he was a soldier and when he was given an order, he obeyed it.

[Trajan88]

Cue the TEXAS A&M FIGHTING AGGIE BAND!

BTHO ou!

Trajan88; TAMU Class of '88, Law Hall (may it R.I.P.) Ramp 9 Mule; f.u.p.!

[Sam Cree]

*