The Mysterious Death of George Patton

"Patton wasn't "Denied" gas, as you put it."

I think someone is betraying their affinity for the Kremlin view of things.

http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap06.html

On June 6th, 1944, the Allied Forces launched "Overlord". The invasion of Normandy. This force, consisting of the First Army (American) and the Second Army (British) was commanded by General Montgomery.

On August 1st, 1944, D-Day+55, Patton's Third Army became officially operational.

Between July 5th, when Third Army had actually landed on French soil, and July 31, Third Army had advanced inland to the town of Avranches. The advance was a total of about 50 miles in 26 days.

In a comparison, Montgomery and his Second British Army had, since D-Day, advanced to the town of Caen, about 10 miles inland. A total of ten miles in 55 days.

By August 11, D-Day+66, Patton and his Third Army had broken completely out of the Cherbourg peninsula. He had advanced south, west, east, and north.... They had made a sharp 90 degree turn at Le Mans and attacked north to the town of Alecon. They had gone a total of 200 miles in 10 days.

Montgomery had finally "pivoted on Caen" and had advanced another 10 miles. A total of 20 miles in 66 days.

Third Army was poised and ready for one of the swiftest, greatest victories in all of history... The 15th Corps had the tanks and troops necessary to put up a solid wall of men and armor... Then, the order arrived from SHAEF. HALT!

The real reason behind the halting of Third Army was Montgomery. He insisted, or rather, demanded that he be allowed to close the gap. He did not want Patton to spring the trap that Third Army had set. Monty wanted the glory and the credit for the "ripe plum" situation which was created by Patton's brilliant leadership and Third Army's speed and daring execution...

Montgomery failed to reach Falaise until the 19th of August, D-Day+74. During that time, with Patton halted at Argentan, the great bulk of the German Army managed to escape through the 12 mile gap. What would have been one of the great and memorable victories of all time was lost due to one of SHAEF's oleaginous political schemes.

What was probably the greatest error made in WWII by Eisenhower and the SHAEF planners was actually two directly related occurrences, one which greatly affected the other.

To quote General Patton, "The 29th of August, 1944 was, in my opinion, one of the critical days of the war... Everything seemed rosy when suddenly it was reported to me that the 140,000 gallons of gasoline which we were supposed to get for that day did not arrive... It was my opinion that this was the momentous error of the war."

The timing was perfect, the day of August 29 was the day. It should have been ordered by SHAEF. Instead, Bradley, reluctantly following orders from above, cut Patton's gasoline supply from 400,000 gallons a day to almost nothing.

Eisenhower had decided to go along with Montgomery and his plan code-named, "Operation Market-Garden". Montgomery demanded, and got, absolute priority for ETO supplies,... he was additionally promised that Patton's drive to the Saar would be completely halted. Montgomery was elated.

It staggers the imagination when considering what Patton could have accomplished with this massive force and number one priority.

On September 24, 1944, Operation Market-Garden was officially over. Here is what had happened:

Allied forces suffered more casualties in Market-Garden than in the mammoth invasion of Normandy... In the nine days of Market-Garden, combined losses amounted to MORE THAN 17,000 men.

British casualties were the highest; a total of 13,226...

American losses, including glider pilots and the 9th Troop Carrier Command, are put at 3,974. General Gavin's 82nd Airborne Division had suffered a loss of 1,432. General Taylor's 101st Airborne lost 2,118. Air crew losses were 424.

Complete German figures are unknown...After interviewing German commanders a conservative estimate was that Army Group B lost at least 7,500 to 10,000 men of which perhaps a quarter were killed. A total of 12,000 to 15,000 men. Less than the Allies.

What about Dutch civilian casualties?... but no one knows with any certainty. there have been casualty figures given as high as 10,000...

After Market-Garden was over, Montgomery said, "In my prejudiced view, if the operation had been properly backed from it's inception...it would have succeeded in spite of my mistakes..."

It seems incredible that with Patton stopped, with absolute priority in supplies and weapons, and with over 30,000 troops, Montgomery still claims that his plan was "improperly backed"...

Had Patton been given this type of support, supplies, and equipment, he could have destroyed the entire German Reich within three months.

The "Battle of the Bulge" at Bastogne, Belgium was not initiated completely by the Germans... There were two occurrences which helped the Germans to launch their offensive on December 16, 1944.

The first was recorded by General Patton in his diary, "The 1st Army is making a terrible mistake in leaving the 8th Corps area static, as it is probable that the Germans are building up to the east of them."

What prompted Patton to this judgement were reports from his G-2 (Intelligence) officer, Colonel Oscar Koch...

As early as December 12, 1944, Koch had begun preparing and transmitting reports to SHAEF regarding what he considered to be a dangerous buildup of Germans east of the 1st Army's 8th Corps. Eisenhower was very busy, occupied with major decisions such as who should be the head nurse of SHAEF. Therefore, he ignored the warnings from those two upstarts, Koch and Patton. He mistakenly allowed Bradley to turn the 8th Corps area into a "rest station", thereby reducing both their discipline and fighting spirit.

The second occurrence was Bradley's breaking of a promise that he had made to Patton. Patton explains, "Bradley called up at 1710 hours and, in my opinion, crawfished quite blatantly, in his forbidding me to use the 83rd Division... If I had been able to use the two combat teams of the 83rd to attack Saarburg, that town would have fallen on the 12th or 13th and we probably would have captured the city of Trier. With Trier in our hands, Von Rundstedt's breakthrough could not have occurred. This is probably a case of, "because of a nail, a shoe was lost, etc..."

In other words, had Patton been allowed to use the 83rd Division, as he had been promised, the Germans would not have had the ability to stage their offensive, let alone break through to Bastogne...

Patton... envisioned what could and might happen if the Germans did decide to attack. He called his staff together for a meeting.

By the time that Patton was called to attend the Allied meeting at Verdun, to discuss the "Bulge" situation, Patton was already prepared with two completely separate and distinct plans of action...

This was the type of planning that Patton and his staff did so well. This same staff that Bradley had termed "mediocre"...

Within less than 48 hours after that meeting, Third Army had 2 divisions attacking toward Bastogne, hitting them in the flank and abruptly stopping their offensive. Within a week he had moved the bulk of his Army, a quarter of a million strong, and including 133,000 tanks and trucks, between 50 and 70 miles to the north in the worst possible weather conditions over icy roads. It is little wonder that the Germans had such a healthy respect for and a powerful fear of Patton...

By January 23,... The German had lost not only the battle, but also the war. The Germans knew it and Patton knew it. The only ones who did not know it were the masterminds at SHAEF.

After Patton had been called in to save the day, he was put back in his place. Though he had saved the Bastogne operations, he was informed that the major push would now be north of the Ruhr, meaning Montgomery.

In the aftermath of Bastogne, Patton continued to follow orders and to fight Germans. Montgomery made some noisy statements about how he had come to the rescue and saved the day for the unfortunate Americans... This was too much even for some of the British. Winston Churchill, speaking before the House of Commons, publicly repudiated Montgomery and his statements. It might be mentioned that had Patton acted and spoken the way Montgomery did, he would have been immediately relieved of duty by Eisenhower, castigated (or castrated) by the press, and sent home in shame. Churchill not only repudiated Montgomery, he reminded him and the British population that during the Bulge, that for every British soldier in the line, there were 35 to 40 Americans; for every British casualty, there were 55 to 60 American casualties.

Worth mentioning here is an interesting insight to the type of man Eisenhower was. Only three months prior to the Battle of the Bulge, before Churchill found it necessary to show support for and to defend the American soldier, and before Patton and his staff had performed a "miracle" with his great Third Army, Eisenhower had the unmitigated gall to make the statement that, "... MONTGOMERY IS THE GREATEST LIVING SOLDIER IN THE WORLD!" Patton, and even Bradley, were disgusted by Eisenhower's remark.

These, then, are the three MAJOR errors made by Eisenhower and SHAEF during WWII in the European Theater of Operations. There were others, but none which had such a wide spread effect on the possible end of the war itself. Had Patton's advice and counsel been heeded, it is very probable that the war would have been concluded by the end of 1944, instead of in 1945.

I dare anyone to deny the above.

There are plenty of crackpot theories espoused by Generals having a star on your shoulder does not make you infallible particularly when the statistics and facts show otherwise.

Of course, that comment has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quote from me. But that is typical of a spamalot post.

It has no bearing on anything. You seem to forget that Patton was a subordinate and PART of an overall plan and alliance. HIS wishes were irrelevant.

Quite likely most of those conjectures can be disputed as well.

"Wrong - we rehabilitated Japan very successfully and very completely in very short time. "

No, you're wrong. We did not "rehabilitate" Japan; it was already well on it's way to becoming a secular democracy -- until it got hijacked by the militarists. What Japan required was a first-hand lesson on the finer parts of Constitutional democracy, which it got under occupation and MacArthur. The Japanese had already spent the better part of 50 years actually building a democracy.

The presance of US Troops in Japan gradually began to wear away at some of the more rigid customs of Japanese culture, making it far less formal, less rigid. The experience of the war instilled the belief that authority very often MUST be challeneged (and not siimply accepted for the sake of peace) because lives very often depend on it. The Japanese also learned (from defeat) that comformity may be a cultural ideal, but that sometimes (as in business or war) you do need individuals that can "think outside the box", and that such people, who were once hammered down, should and oculd have a voice without civilization crashing down around everyone's ears..

"You really have no understanding of the process of political modernization. The problems we have in the Middleast have nothing to do with a belief in Mohammed - we could have the same problem if they believed in Festivus."

PLEASE! Dude, you're talking to someone who holds a MASTER'S DEGREE in Western Civilization (and is working on his PHD!)! I've forgotten more about "political modernization" then you ever knew!
You cannot have "political modernization" without secular rationalism; i.e. the ability to think and experiment, free of religious orthodoxy.

Has there ever been the equivalent of a Martin Luther in the Middle East? Has there ever been a Galileo? A Henry the Navigator? A Muslim Columbus, or Paracelsus, perhaps? Answer: No, there hasn't. What makes these people such a big deal? Because they all, at one time or another, blew away the rock-solid foundations of religious orthodoxy by
the application and demonstration of logical and scientific premises that ran counter to the prevailing religious orthodoxy of the day, at a time when the Church was THE biggest bad boy on the block.

Luther called out the Church, the most powerful organization of it's day, and held it responsible for it's corruption. Galileo destroyed the premise that the Earth was the center of the solar system, destroying a religious doctrine that had been accepted without question for centuries. Henry the Navigator and Christopher Columbus proved that the Church-sponsored-and-approved Aristotlean view of the world was incorrect, that the Indian Ocean actually did exist as something other than an enclosed sea of fire, and that there was no such thing as an Antipodean, superstitions that held sway in Christian circles forever.
Paracelsus put the superstitions (and useful) belief that disease was the result of sin to bed forever, and proved that it was the result of outside factors.

Do you see where this is heading? Every discovery mentioned above disproved an accepted, concrete religious domga of it's day and begat the system of rationalism that we enjoy to this very day, but take for granted.

There is no one in Islam, ever, who comes forward and says "Hey, your interpretation of what God said is wrong. And I can prove it!". To do so gets you killed. It used to be the same in the West, but once people began to see that the "heretics" (like the ones mentioned above) were often actually right, and the church wrong, it became safer to dissent and have a free exchange of ideas.

"They are anti-west because of Communist indoctrination in the 50's , 60's, and 70's"

They are anti-West because they are religiously pre-disposed to be so. Have you never heard of the Two Houses of Islam? The Dhimmi? Did Islam not spread by conquest, not just in Arab lands, but in non-Arab ones as well? It is the duty of every Muslim to bring the world under the cntrol of Sharia law (the Caliphate --- there have, to dat, been something like 30 caliphates. Like socialists, they keep trying despite the premise being proved faulty repeatedly), and to convert or destroy all non-believers. That includes Buddhists, Shintos, Scientologists, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Animists, and Druids, in fact, everyone who isn't Muslim, and even then, they have their own secular issues. That's not only Anti-Western, it's pretty much anti-world.

It's been that way since 632 AD (see my tagline). The propaganda of the 50's-70's did little but to reinforce the cultural, religious and ethnic prejudices that already existed, and to inflame a latent frustration amongst people who would dearly love to have everything the West has to offer, but can't because of the cultural threat that often comes with it.

Span, I really have been nice about this and tried to educate you, but it's apparent you refuse to absorb what's being written. You want to believe what you want to believe, and that's fine, and at the same time, rather ironic. It is EXACTLY the same inability to accept the painfully obvious that brought the Church of Rome into conflict with Galileo (notice I didn't write that the other way around? See if you can figure out why).

Spannie: Here's how effective Patton's "tactical genius" was on the Brtttany Peninisula (ports of Brest and St. Naizaire) and at Metz. You will note that each of these attacks, after the failure of the initial armored assault, devolves into a frontal infantry assault against fortified positions.

So much for "genius".

You can skip all the explanations of the urban combat operations, if you wish, and concentrate on the specific examples of Patton's failures, which are inside the grey boxes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06/chap6.html

Sorry, faulty hyperlink. Try this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06/chap6.htm

I'll deny it because US Army documents and archival materials from the Patton museum show otherwise:

www.generalpatton.org

Of course, the real "Kremlin view of things" would be for someone like you to infer there were internal US Army plots against Patton and that the Brits and Americans were at loggerheads. THAT Comrade Spanalot IS the Kremlin Line. Interesting that you continue to denigrate our military heros.

A "good person" wow, you play one role on here and another elsewhere. Hmmm. Quite "arafatesque"

"9:37 PM

spanalot said...
Alex,

The Kremlin is guilty of the liquidation of 100 million in the last century and Putin continues to deny this.

I honestly believe Putin is a GOOD PERSON but what a horrible position to take when the Kremlin goes about resurrecting Stalin and such."

http://tbirdblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_tbirdblog_archive.html"

Re: the ports deal. What really rankles about that is not tha the potential "ownership" would come from the UAE, but that the entire thing was being kept a secret, in as much as that was possible.

We cannot remain a free society when the government keeps that kind of secret, knowingly, because it knows what the public fallout would be. As a straight business deal, I didn't see a problem with it (hard to keep a straight face about "security conerns" when Chinese concerns operate 14 ports on the West Coast); as a pblic relations problem, it's stank to high heaven.

I think more people objected to the secrecy, more than anything else, and of course, there are always thouse who lie in wait to exploit anythingpossible for political advantage.

But,to get back to the original point, is it possible to transplant the roots of Western Civ in the Middle East? I believe the answer is yes, but it won't be easy, nor will it happen quickly. But the first step, and also the hardest, is to change the mindset. In this case, it must be shown that the Western way,while confusing and often threatening to non-Western cultures, does in fact, provide for the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

No one ever really talks about this, but all those American, British, Australian and Canadian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have another mission, unwritten and never spoken of: cultural ambassadors. And as they mix with the Afghans and Iraqis, as they show themselves to be fair, rational people, and as they form freindships and alliances n local communities, the walls of the Foretress of Ignorance will come tumbling down.

Once you do that, the rest (separation of church and state, capitalism, free scientific inquiry, legal protection of personal property, extension of political rights to minorities, etc) is a foregone conclusion.

"You can skip all the explanations of the urban combat operations, if you wish, and concentrate on the specific examples of Patton's failures, which are inside the grey boxes"

I did and it confirms my and everyone else's understanding - there was no "failure" in Brittany - Eisenhower and Bradley delayed the sweep to send Patton eastward after the bulk of the retreating German Army.

Can you explain your perception of a "failure" on Patton's part here?

Bradley and Eisenhower had to decide whether to adhere to the original plan and turn west with Patton’s forces to secure the peninsula or to take advantage of the breakout at Saint Lo and turn east to exploit the disruption of the German defenses.

Ultimately they reached a compromise. General Middleton’s VIII Corps was tasked to secure the peninsula, and the bulk of Patton’s Army, three Army corps, was turned northeast to exploit the operational collapse of the main German defenses. See Figure 6-1.

Where is the Patton Museum?

"I'll deny it because US Army documents and archival materials from the Patton museum show otherwise: www.generalpatton.org "

This is a Museum with no online archives. Lots of pretty pictures but devoid of facts. What can you expect when a word search of Bastogne comes up blank.

I see no denial of the facts an quots I posted.

Yet another link that is devoid of info. And I do believe Putin is a good perrson , but absolute power corrupts absolutely and he is drunk with it - and Russia's worst enemy.

"And I do believe Putin is a good perrson "

So you'll be apologizing to the people you called traitors for expressing similiar sentiments?

What are your thoughts on Yalta (sp)?

Try visiting NARA.

Yes, I can explain it.

Middleton is merely the Corps commander. Patton is the Army Commander. Any failure, therefore, IS Pattons. The US Army lives and dies by this principle.

You did read the part where the initial attack of 6th Armored stalled, due to delay, just when it was possible to take Brest with little opposition? And you did read the part that said the resulting 10,000 US casualties caused the Allies to bypass similar attacks on Lorient and St. Nazaire, at a time when the American army was being supplied by a single, barely-operational port (Cherbourg)?

You do remember the supply problems the Allies faced in the race across France (particularly Patton), which you attribute to "Patton having his supplies taken away"? As if there was a conspiracy to starve Patton of supplies.

You do recall reading that the attack on Metz (the third one, that is, the previous arored attacks failed) kisnotable for it's lackof armor, it's lack of the mobility and sleight-of-hand of modern combat and is reminiscent of a WWI seige, with reulting heavy casualties?

Patton, regarding Metz, said that "fixed fortifications were a testament to the stupidity of man", because, in his mind, he planned to bypass it. However, he was ordered to take it, and when he did, it was with a singular lack of originality. In the end, massed infantry charged those "stupid fixed fortifications' suffered horrendous casualties. But that's okay; we "won" the battle.

Bottom line: Had Patton either kicked Middleton's behind (i the attack on Brest) or insisted (possibly at cost of his job) that Metz should be bypassed, or better yet, taken personal command of the operations we can say (although not with certainty) that the possession of four ports, rather than one, woulds have eased the Allied supply situation and allowed a much faster advance, which would have shortened the war AND SAVED LIVES. We can say, although ot with certainty, that had Patton done what he knew to be right at Metz, he would have SAVED LIVES.

As for Patton chasing the Germans across France, and pointing to it as some sort of "tactical genius"; There was no organized German resistence after Falaise until the allied armies reached Metz and Verdun, and finally the Rhine. The majority of the credit should not go to Patton, but to General "Opie" Weyland (Command of XIX Tactical Air Force), and Generals Abrahms and Wood. Patton, however, gets the credit because he's overall commander, and avoids the blame because we can always say "Ike and Brad gave him two incompatible missions. That is a luxury a public figure as revered as Patton has). Patton should have been the FIRST to point out that the capture of the ports AND chasing the Germans were incompatable, and should have said so. That he didn't speaks more to his eagerness to get Back into command, even if it meant doing something that stupid, like undertake competing missions simultaneously.

No commander should ever be asked, let alone do, such a thing. Just ask Admiral Nagumo at Midway how that worked out for him.

Then again, give me complete air supremacy, an enemy in headlong retreat and incapable of organized resistance, short of tanks, and I'll advance 50 miles a day too. Yes, Patton did travel further and faster than anyone, and engaged more divisions, but what shapre were those divisions in when they faced 3rd Army? How much ground had the ceded? What was left after Falaise?

Patton rightfully gets marks for his character, his execution of the overall strategy (hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass -- the prefered strategy of field commanders since Alexander the Great, how original!), the near-campaign-ending semi-victory at Falaise, and finally for his anticipation of the German attack in the Ardennes (the Bulge) and being prepared for it.

After that, the record is mixed. His victories in North Africa showed much more drive, dash and original thinking, and the Patton legend is most certainly tarnished by the Sicilian campaign (not just he soldier slapping, either). By August of 1944 this is no longer the G.S. Patton that drove the Germans out of Tunisia; this (the 1944-45) G.S. Patton is muzzled by higher command, he is wary of doing anything to rock the boat, and he is more creation of the press than he is tactical genius.

Yalta is generally considered a tragedy for the West, and a betrayal of Eastern Europe, but more than anything, it is was a reflection of the overall strategic realities of the time.

The biggest victim, in my opinion, was Winston Churchill.

Churchill, for all his banter, was a realistic gentleman. He knew that the total defeat of Germany more or less guarenteed Russian control of Eastern Europe. The situation Churchill finds himself in is quite ironic; he wants the dfeat of Germany, but not a defeat that leaves Germany unable to stand against (or help stand against) Stalin. His overriding concerns are:

a) Erasing the stain of the Munich Pact, in which the English government basically gave up (arrogantly, no less!)Czechoslovakia in order to buy a few months of relative peace, and to correct the grave mistake of guarenteeing Polish security without being able to do anything to back it up. English credibility was nearly destroyed by the betrayal of the Czechs and the puny response made to the invasion of Poland. The only way to do this is to ensure that English and American forces are in a position to make certain that Czechoslovakia (and Poland), are defended against the new (and worse) threat of Stalin.

b) Chruchill realizes that France is not an ally that can be counted upon to help keep Western Europe safe from the Red Army. There will be no post-War united Anglo-French front to stand against Stalin. DeGaulle was a mostly ineffective ally who's overriding concern was his own aggrandizement and notions of French nationalism that bore no resemlance to the reality of the war. The only way to provide some security for Post-war western Europe is to have sufficient forces in EASTERN Europe to act as a buffer.

These are the goals Churchill sought, not only at Yalta, but on his repeated insistance for inavsions of the "soft underbelly" of Europe as envisioned in an invasionof the Balkans which was continually spoken of, but never undertaken. The Americans wanted a Cross-Channel omvasionof France as "the big show", and since they were contributing the troops and equipment, they got their way.

Stalin's goals were the exact oposite of Chruchill's; he seeks a buffer between Russia and Western Europe. Since there is not going to be an allied presance in Eastern Europe, ever, he is free to build that buffer with whatever his armies can occupy.

It's simple arithmetic, really.

As for Truman, he is in over his head. He may have been Roosevelt's VP, but he was kept conspicuously in the dark over overall Allied strategy by FDR; he's learning on the job, basically. He's presented wih a scenario where his population wants the war over quickly, his armies are in no shape or position to enact his ally's (Churchill's), strategy and he's not about to start playijng the old European game of "Spheres of Influence"; he still has to defeat Japan and bring the boys back home.

All Truman cares about is getting out, not being drawn in deeper.

"Middleton is merely the Corps commander. Patton is the Army Commander. Any failure, therefore, IS Pattons. "

That's absurd - blame it on Cain.

"You do remember the supply problems the Allies faced in the race across France (particularly Patton), which you attribute to "Patton having his supplies taken away"? As if there was a conspiracy to starve Patton of supplies. "

Equally absurd - Montgomery and Bradley were favored by Eisenhower and it is they who sustained the worst casualties despite getting far more support.

Proof positive is the crossing of the Rhine (from my earlier post)

One of Patton’s most ingenious and little known plans was for his Rhine crossing. Several months before he crossed the Rhine, while he was still planning in England, he selected a spot along the Rhine River where he would cross with his Army. He chose this area “because the terrain on my side dominated that on the other side, as the former was far enough away from the Frankfurt hills to prevent direct fire on the bridges, and because, above everything else, there was a barge harbor there from which we could launch the boats unseen.” Less than ten men died in Patton’s military crossing of the Rhine! That is unprecedented in the history of war. That Patton could plan this from simply looking at a terrain map in London is incredible, and shows Patton’s genius not just in swift exploitation, but also in planning.

Patton’s crossing of the Rhine was typical of his operations; the 5th Infantry Division had simply ferried across the Rhine in rafts and small engineer assault boats early in the morning. The operation was launched with nothing special in the way of supplies or equipment. He was very proud of this and had his messenger tell Bradley that, “Without benefit of aerial bombing, ground smoke, artillery preparation, and airborne assistance, the Third Army at 2200 hours, Thursday evening, March 22, crossed the Rhine River.” The man who had the aerial bombing, ground smoke, artillery, airborne divisions, Field Marshal Montgomery, had been beaten across the Rhine by the genius of Lt. Gen. Patton’s strategy.