Patton: The Glory of War and its Limitations

Toogood Reports ^ | 28 September 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[archy]

The Speech Somewhere in England June 5th, 1944. ... .

George Scott's version of the pre-D-Day *Patton Speech* here: http://www.pattonhq.com/sounds/scott.au

The Real Deal: GSP giving a speech at Los Angeles - June 12, 1945: http://www.pattonhq.com/sounds.gsp.au

There's a pretty good line, good for a laugh, in the real thing. Not surprisingly, the version done by the professional, polished actor is flawless and perfect in the timing of its delivery. And also not surprisingly, I far prefer the less-than-perfect results from the real thing, warts and all. Whatever his personal flaws or faults of character, Patton was a genius, and the precisely right man in the right place at the right time.

But my God, how we need one like him now. And what we have are far from being his sort. I doubt he could survive in today's professional military climate. But wouldn't it be interesting if he had returned to postwar life in his native California and entered the political life of that state then. At least until the outbreak of the Korean War.

Would the famous *wrong headline of the Chicago Tribune have screamed *Truman defeats Patton* held aloft by a grinning GSP? It fair boggles the mind, but there's little doubt that that postwar world would most likely have been a very different one from the one which we were handed.

[MrConfettiMan]

...including Kerry who though decorated threw his medals away.

I'm sure others will correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't even think the medals Kerry "threw away" during the "demonstration" to which you allude to were his own. I believe he bought them from a pawn shop or something.

[PLMerite]

Bump utnil I can figure out how to save this...

[mrustow]

When I grew up, it was taken for granted that every president would have served his country under combat arms. Bush II notwithstanding, I think that was a proper expectation. It involved a moral and citizenship test, but also a realistic understanding of warfare. When I look at today's politicians, whether they are appeasment-minded Dems or hawkish GOPers, all I see is a bunch of draft-dodgers.

[mrustow]

I just saved the thread as Patton Speech #11, so I'd know where to scroll to.

[archy]

Well, if Rooney hated him, he must've been a bum, LOL! Tell me, was Rooney a journalist then?

Yes. For the military *Stars and Stripes* newspaper distributed to the troops. Rooney's descriptions of the time he spent with a WWII bomber unit were particularly well done.

[mrustow]

So, you think our force in Iraq was one of world history's great military machines? I wish I could share your enthusiasm, but beating the lowly Iraqi army, and not even having had to face the Iraqi air force, such as it was, somehow fails to generate such enthusiasm in me. Maybe you possess some secret info the rest of us lack.

[mrustow]

A unique film about a unique man. Its the greatest biopic I've ever seen. I think of it as a biopic first, but since it's the bio of a warrior, it's of course a war movie too, but only secondarily. Does that make sense?

[mrustow]

Thanks for the info. He must have loved the scene, where the scribe insults Patton.

[skeeter]

Although the segue the author makes between the movie & the current neo vs paleo debate is kinda strained, the article is thought provoking. Thanks for the ping.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

So, you think our force in Iraq was one of world history's great military machines? I wish I could share your enthusiasm, but beating the lowly Iraqi army, and not even having had to face the Iraqi air force, such as it was, somehow fails to generate such enthusiasm in me. Maybe you possess some secret info the rest of us lack.

Careful, mister. I have it on good authority (first-hand from an F/A-18 pilot) that our men and women patrolling the skies faced some pretty stiff opposition from the Iraqi air defenses. Perhaps the Iraqi military was no match for ours this time around, but it was far from defenseless.

[mrustow]

Sure thing. And I agree.

[Cicero]

A good article about a great man, but there are surely some false notes in it.

For one thing, Patton didn't say we fought on the wrong side. He said there were TWO enemies, Hitler and Stalin, and he was right about that.

I was especially bothered by this: "Some people thought him mad, for wanting to fight the Russians (and for believing we should have been fighting them, rather than the Germans), but millions thought he was right. The notion that we were fighting the wrong guys echoes today among those who suggest our enemies are the Jews of Israel, rather than radical Islam."

Horse manure. The people who loved Uncle Joe Stalin and the people who pretended that Tet was a great defeat are all slobbering over Arafat and the Palestinian terrorists. The people who thought we were naive to give Eastern Europe to Stalin with a bow on it or to give China to Mao are not the antisemites of today.

The notion that we were fighting on the wrong side relates not to our support of Israel but to our war against Yugoslavia on behalf of drug-running Muslim Albanian thugs.

[dirtboy]

Americans will not tolerate a garrison state.

Yeah, look at how public pressure led us to withdraw all of military from Germany immediately after WWII. Whoops, we didn't, they're still there. What gives?

[ffusco]

Sure, It was not his bio, but the story of a man in crucial moment in history.

[dirtboy]

We won in Iraq through an overwhelming advantage in men and materiel, against a woefully inferior opponent. Had we been up against one of history’s great military machines, such as Hitler’s Reichswehr and Luftwaffe, we would have lost.

That is one of those claims that is both true and absurd at the same time. When this country entered WWII, we were in no shape to take on Hitler. It took a couple of years to build to that point. Likewise, had Saddam been stronger, we would have had to engage in a year-long military buildup to take him on. But the end result would have been the same. Since we didn't need a buildup (despite the claims of the armchair generals to the contrary), we didn't need to go the WWII route of a protracted buildup and a year-long pitched battle to get to the enemy's capital.

That's what happens when you apply the lessons of the past without adequately evaluating the present - you get to sound authoritative and stupid simultaneously.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Last summer I read Carlo De' Este's Book on Patton. Very well written and goes into great detail on Patton, his life, battles and those that had it in for him.
In the forward De'Este says forget about the movie "Patton" as it was deeply flawed and mainly because the Technical Adviser was General Omar Bradley, who absolutely hated Patton. That movie was based on Ladislas Farago's book and Bradley's book, with Bradley making sure that movie showed Patton as he wanted him to be seen.

[TADSLOS]

Patton's Commandments:

Do everything that you ask of those you command

Say what you mean, and mean what you say

Do not fear failure

Do more than is required of you

Do not take counsel to your fears

Always go forward

Take calculated risks

Give credit where credit is due

Accept full responsibility for the actions of yourself and your men

"Breaking Right"

[alfa6]

Bump for later read

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[Teacher317]

But my God, how we need one like him now. And what we have are far from being his sort.

We have General Wesley Clark!! He'll save us!!

*ducking the well-deserved shoes being thrown at me!*