My great uncle Nick fought under Patton in Africa. His military career ended with a head injury after Anzio. While in military hospital he met my great aunt Sylvia and they went on to live over 40 years together. We fondly called him major Nick and he would tell his stories of what it was like to be a soldier in Patton's army. He had nothing but great respect! Rest in peace Nick
@@rosiehawtrey Lol! It literally had nothing to do with Montgomery who was in Britain replanning D-Day and the strategy for Normandy. More evidence that people simply don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to Montgomery.
Patton was the pinnacle of the man you had to respect, but not necessarily like. He’s the guy you would follow, not because you loved him, but because he always knew what the hell he was doing.
@@jacktattis I agree. I am not saying that Patton is the end all be all of World War 2 generals .I was merely saying that crap floats to the top as well. Montgomery being my case in point.
@@mageckman Yes many people did not like Monty. However at one point he Commanded 2 US armies as well as his own 20th Army Group which Patton never done. Hodges did not like it but I think it was Simpkins who got on well with Montgomery Just think of it a arrogant Limey General in charge of two US Armies Unheard of however Eisenhower did it
I imagine he was good to some, bad to others . His 3 month Metz Lorraine Campaign has been revisited and is not considered a great Campaign these days Hodges Devers were plodders but achieved as much on their Fronts in a shorter time
He was using Metz to blood green troops. It was not a failure of leadership. There is a reason 3rd Army had the lowest casualty rat of any US Army in the ETO!
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I wouldn't argue! I remember a response to a statement condemning Patton as a butcher. It stated thar the only Commander with a lower casualty rate than Patton was MacArthur. Further, Devers rarely had direct command of troops. After D-Day he commanded 6th Army Group. As such he was in overall command of the landings in Southern France. Eventually commanding 7th Army and the French First Army. So one cannot compare casualties between an Army and an Army Group. I do feel Devers was a progressive officer. Had Ike listened to him more IMO US casualties would have been less than they were
He didn't miss that. He was an anti-Semitic rich boy, from a Confederate background. Of course he sympathised with racist rich pricks in grey uniforms!
Sigh. Not what he said. Removing every Nazi party member from government or civil service was unworkable is what he said and he was right. Because like it or not, almost every single person in Germany was a member by that point, practically by law. A famous example was Wernher Freiherr von Braun - you might remember him - latterly ran NASA. Nazi Assisted Space Americans.
Sigh. Not what he said. Removing every Nazi party member from government or civil service was unworkable is what he said and he was right. Because like it or not, almost every single person in Germany was a member by that point, practically by law. A famous example was Wernher Freiherr von Braun - you might remember him - latterly ran NASA. Nazi Assisted Space Americans.
Your referring to the quote were he said "we marched on the wrong foe" right?" Depends how I interpreted the quote was after arriving Germany he wished we'd make am agreement for a single germany (rather then split) to exist after the war, if they marched with the west. If that Germany was made to be democratic, maybe wouldn't have been bad, but that's completely unrealistic. maybe we could have came to agreement were if hitler stepped down or something we'd allow the nazi party power. Course good luck convincing the soliders and public to go on board with this. Patton was detached from reality if he thought these interpretations. Still to be fair he didn't live to long after the war, not long enough to have complete idea of reality.
@@swampdonkey1567 well, that and the outright anti semitism present in conversation with journalists, letters to friends, etc. I can't link to it, but look up his letter to Charles Rodman where he calls Jewish people "sub-human".
Sadly this video is so wrong I do not have the stamina to write the essay needed to correct this collection of myths. Nevertheless some pointers. First Patton was neither feared nor even really known to the German's who feared Montgomery far more in 1944. Secondly those who despised Patton the most were the two American Commanders he fought with, General Bradley and Eisenhower who were far more pissed off that Patton took Palermo leaving Bradley's Western flank exposed in Sicily and thus failing to trap the Elite German paratroop formations who were able to escape back to Italy unscathed. Also it was Montgomery, ironically, who insisted on Patton for 3rd Army commander. Despite their rivalry they both respected each other in their own way. Monty saw Patton as the needed 'pusher' to do the breakout even if his low opinion of Pattons grasp of logistics and strategy was proven correct. In his own diary in 1942, Patton recorded his real impression of Montgomery as 'wonderfully conceited and the first competent British Commander I have met in this war. He is a man and he knows his stuff'. Not the same as his public statements but fascinating nevertheless. The film 'Patton' is very honest and far more realistic than this 'documentary' which focuses on myths not insight! My favorite scene is the one where Patton waits for Monty's arrival after getting to Messina first. Wonderfully humorous and honest as Monty teased Patton about having shaved that morning, hoping for a kiss, just to tease Patton. It is clear they enjoyed the rivalry and could joke with each other. Reality is far more interesting than politically motivated myths! It is too bad and pathetic that politics informs most opinions on Patton and Montgomery, not actual historical curiosity!
Even Joseph Stalin was apparently an admirer of Patton, stating that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton's rapid armored advance across France
@@spiritorange8325 Correct, and it was about to fail in several moments. Montgomery and Eisenhower were about to abort it mid operation several times. But yes, it succeded, in part because it hit one of the weakest parts of France coast. But again, no merit taken away, it succeeded for sure. But that doesnt have to do with what I said at all. The battle of Normandy was hell for the allies and it wasnt "rapid" at all, as this guy said.
I find this hard to believe, since the Red army had in operation Bagration under the command of General Rokossovsky from 22 June to 25 July 1944 had advanced from east of Minsk in Belarus all the way to the Vistula River outside Warsaw, over 650 km, and practically crushed army group center some of the best trained and equipped German forces available at the time. Meanwhile the German forces the 3rd Army went up against were primarily security units made of disabled or poorly trained troops and a German tank division with only 14 tanks. Its easy to advance rapidly when there is little opposition. He did help out with the Falaise pocket which was able to eliminate a significant amount of German equipment. I do think though that most of the German soldiers were able to escape that encirclement though.
Hypothetically speaking - if Patton had been held to the standards of the Nuremberg Trials he would have been executed for war crimes. Before the invasion of Sicily, Patton gave explicit orders to his commanders not to accept German/Italian surrender unless they did so IMMEDIATELY on first contact with American troops. At Biscari airfield in Sicily on July 14 1943, after a protracted fight two American officers massacred 73 unarmed Italian and German prisoners. Two separate court-martials were convened and at one of them the defendant was excused when he maintained that he was only doing exactly what he had been ordered to do by his commanding General and witnesses confirmed this claim.
In other videos ive heard that the germans thought he was a bag of wind. Also pattern was told that the germans were going to attack at the bulge. Even villagers had told the soldiers that they had seen the german build up. But pattern dismissed it. If they had lost at the bulge would have been interesting to see what they had said about him.
I think he would have been looked at better if he'd had been a civil war general. I think he was a little too gung ho for modern generalship, honestly, I'd rather fought for Montgomery.
Bradley accused Patton of poor tactics and said his idea of tactics is attack attack attack ……..Patton said Audacity Audacity Audacity…….sounds to me that old George would of allways been a successful leader as Audacious attacks were what julius Ceaser was renowned for but his troops losses would of been far higher than say other allied leaders .
PTSD was not understood when Patton slapped soldiers in Sicily. Patton may have considered “Shell Shock”, as cowardice. Also, American have a history of finding flaws in great leader, whether true or not, even George Washington was criticized. And he was the first man to peacefully surrender leadership of a country. Patton was a military genius! He deserves honor and respect!
Excellent video. Patton was a man of his time; it’s difficult to call him a “racist.” Moreover, the incidents that haunted him in Sicily were the direct result of what he, and other officers saw in Tunisia. There already were incidents of US troops giving no quarter. But there were quite a few cases of US troops bolting from German and Italian attacks. US troops had had no previous training in combat operations. Lloyd Fredendall was the first commander of II Corps. Largely reactive, Fredendall did not push his troops. When Eisenhower relieved Fredendall and put Patton in command, surely he knew about “Georgie” and his often petty nature. But Ike also knew that Patton was a go-getter. And Patton as commander had to instill in the men a hatred for the enemy. He didn’t want his men in Sicily to do as they often had done in Tunisia. He had to make US troops fighting men - that he achieved. Condemn him for the two slapping incidents? Sure we can, but the media made more of it than it was. But one thing it did do was to get Patton out of command in Italy. That would have been a disaster for him.
Patton is one of my favorite Generals in the history of the US Army. Brash, bold, eccentric, and cunning yet can be egotistic and a hard ass. I sometimes think of him as basically the World War II equivalent of George Armstrong Custer
Montgomery and Patton had different priorities. Montgomery had to preserve his troops as there were no sizeable number of replacements from a population of 45m. Patton had almost unlimited resources in equipment at least and to a large extent men. He could go gung ho and losses could be replaced.
He was Bradley's subordinate, and commanded a smaller force than Monty. Patton, not Bradley, came up with the plan to save Bastogne. But it took the best US Army commander of WWII, Simpson and Conquer, to work well with Monty.
As noted, because he was feared by the German brass, he was used as a lightning rod to divert German assets from main thrusts. When set free, he ran through German lines (often outrunning his supplies) but demoralizing the enemy.
@@donalddowning4108 He wasn't feared at all 🤣 the reality was that the Germans mostly ignored Patton in their strategic assessments, it was Monty and Ike that they paid attention to. . As Yeide notes, the German commanders were not impressed by Patton’s drive to Palermo, which involved territory they had already given up. Nor were they overawed by the American performance in what he calls “smash mouth” fighting. The Germans did not track Patton’s movements as the key to allied intentions. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists.” Hence their intelligence efforts were much more focused on people like Montgomery and Eisenhower, because this was the level on which strategic decisions were made. One piece of the Patton story, however, is pure myth: that Patton was the subject of close scrutiny by the Germans, who anticipated his attacks in fearful admiration. General Patton was not, as his biographer Martin Blumenson wrote in The Patton Papers: 1885-1940, a “hero even to professional German officers who respected him as the adversary they most feared in battle.” Nor was he, as Ladislas Farago claimed in his book Patton, regarded by the Germans “as their most dangerous adversary in the field…. For a while the Germans watched the comings and goings of Patton like rubbernecked spectators following a tennis ball at Wimbleton.” In fact, for most of the war the Germans barely took notice.
Old "Blood and Guts" was loved by some and hated by others. My father was an officer with the 34th Div during the Louisiana summer maneuvers in 1941 prior to the start of WWII and the story circulated that Patton came upon a lineman on a telephone pole only wearing a T Shirt and pants while working 30' up. Patton , who was a stickler for dress and appearance. Got out of the Jeep, began to ream the poor fellow out cursing him and calling him a disgrace to the Army, and ordered him to come down so Patton could discipline his commanders. The guy comes down, looks at Patton, and says something to the effect "mister, I don't know what your problem is, but I work for Southwestern Bell telephone Company, so you can kiss my ass and then returned to his job. I think the problem with Patton was that the National Guard and Reserve troops thought he was a ass
In the end he was human. Like all humans he had his short comings. He was around when he was needed most and did what he thought was best to win. He accurately knew who our next enemy was and wasn't shy about admitting it. He was good leader. He just let his ego and sense of destiny get the best of him most times. Though I think Omar Bradley was a better general all around.
If Bradley is quarter good as Patton the war would have been ended half year earlier. The difference between them is Patton was born as solder, while Bradley was trained as soldier. To Patton, war was his destiny, to Bradley war was a piece of job.
My grand father who was a medic under Patton during the battle of the bulge said a lot to me " I never did like that guy." He didn't talk about the war much. I learned he was part of the clean up crew the day after D-Day. That must have scared him seeing so much death.
No leader is perfect but Patton was the perfect leader for the armored community. He loved his men, his men loved him. Even as a current Abrams tanker we still hold patton in high praise
Most overrated and underachieving well known general of WW2. He never fought the best the Germans had and was never in the thick of the big battles of the western front. He legend rests largely with an inaccurate Hollywood movie.
I’d say he was loved and hated to a point. It does take a strong backbone to lead an army, but eventually one’s ego can get the best of them and they either learn from their actions or not, just my opinion.
Patton is complicated. There are two things that ought be pointed out, he didn’t sound like George C. Scott portrayed him in the movie, and so far as MHV has said, there’s no German documentation to support a great fear or respect for Patton. Patton thought a lot about leadership as a concept, and much of those ideas survive today even if they’re not attributed to Patton. His niece? might have said it best at his funeral, “it’s better for uncle Georgie like this, he wouldn’t understand peace.” Or words to that effect. He belongs in a glass case that says “in case of war, break glass.”
And nor did Montgomery have an issue with Patton. He never said or wrote a bad word about Patton and even hoped his soldier slapping escapades could be kept quiet. Montgomery even said to Eisenhower in the Ardennes that he should get Patton to advance to Bastogne, not knowing that Eisenhower had already thought of that. Patton had a problem with Montgomery, but the reverse was not true.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Ike never thought of anything, the man was a good politician, but an absolute shitty general with zero tactical or strategic competence. It was Patton who thought up how to relieve Bastogne, not Ike, he told Ike he could do it and Ike laughed at him thinking it impossible to move an entire Army group 180 degrees, march over 100 miles, and engage the enemy in time. Patton not only did it, he also won and drove the German troops back across the Rhine. Ike should have been court marshalled IMO, first of reliving Patton in Sicily, and then for ignoring him in the Falaise Gap.
@@tedwojtasik8781 Yes Eisenhower was an excellent man manager and politician and should have just remained as Supreme Commander, and not also taken over command of ground strategy from Montgomery in September 1944. Under Montgomery in command of all ground forces the allies did extremely well, moving 600km from the Normandy beaches to Belgium etc in just 3 months, which was ahead of schedule. When Eisenhower took over in September, the allied advance then stalled and barely moved 100km for the next 6 months, due to Eisenhower insisting of a dispersed broad from. Instead of smashing down the door into Germany in one concentrated punch, he instead decided to knock on the door everywhere, the result of which the Germans were able to hold at bay. Montgomery argued for a concentrated northern thrust with 40 divisions in 4 armies, which would have included Patton's 3rd Army as well as US 1st Army, British 2nd Army and Canadian 1st Army. Eisenhower insisted on the broad front instead, which was far more difficult to supply and maintain and it weakened the attacking power.
According to Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Patton. He lived for the action of the battlefield. He was a tactical genius who understood war strategy on a deep level. But during peace time he suffered from depression. It was if he was born to be a warrior without fear. Even Adolf Hitler himself and his third reich would not dare send their forces anywhere near Patton and his men. Hitler's #1 priority was to avoid Patton and his army at all cost.
He understood the value of the stage but if you really want to know Patton, read Patton’s Leadership Principles and it’s a eye opener to his learning disabilities and how he overcame them as well as his common sense approach to leadership
I think his ego got in his way. The idea of treating all soldiers, even the lowest enlisted, with respect was and still important to the US military. The fact is that his temper and disregard for authority hurt him
What would your example of ego being what hurt Patton be though? I don't think it is ego that caused him to slap those 2 men. It was his temper and respect he had for soldiers that caused that to happen. Patton was in tears when he slapped those men because he was so upset that what he thought were men being cowards to avoid fighting made up their condition and was a slap to the other men he just spent hours talking to who all had physical injuries. We have to remember this was the 40's when Patton slapped them and Patton himself was born back in 1906. He and many other people (I'd say the majority of people) had the same opinion as Patton did back then when he slapped those men. They didn't know about PTST back then and even shell shock was a condition viewed much differently. Those men he slapped didn't encounter a situation where it was believed someone would get shell shock. It was thought shell shock would happen to men hit for long periods of time by artillery. And partially in Patton's defense of the slapping incidents, 1 of those men he slapped could have been faking his condition to avoid combat. One of the men he slapped had not seen any combat and didn't see anyone get killed or injured in front of him. That man was a truck driver (there is nothing wrong with that, logistics troops are very valuable and have a job as important as most other jobs) and was taking a break when another unit was moving to the front line and a officer told that solider Patton would later slap to come with them to the front since he was not doing anything at that moment (people have said that solider was making jokes to the officers troops as they went to the front which is another reason the officer told the solider to come with them to the front) and that solider refused to go to the front saying that wasn't his job, I am a supply trooper and things like that. So that officer sent the solider to the field hospital since he was refusing to fight. The other man Patton slapped had seen combat and men being injured/killed. Patton was known for treating his soldiers with respect apart from the slapping incidents. Those slapping incidents actually made Patton even more liked by his troops later in the war when in command of the 3rd Army. Because as I was saying back then it would have been thought those soldiers were faking their conditions to avoid fighting at the front. It is often mis-understood by many historians that enlisted troops liked Bradly but not Patton when it was actually the other way around. Patton's troops loved him because he spent so much time at the front and talking to all of his men in normal conversations no matter what their rank was and he would ask them things they thought was working and not working. While Bradly who was a very good general and a master at logistics very rarely would go to the front to talk to the enlisted men (he was of course an Army group commander which resulted in Bradly not going to the front often just like the other Army Group commanders Montgomery, Devers and Clark). Lastly that Army that Patton led at the end of WW2, the US 3rd Army was by far the largest single Army of WW2 out of all countries making up 18 US divisions (much larger then Soviet or German divisions) Patton's one single army was larger then the Army Group that Montgomery was leading (Montgomery had 2 armies under his command at the end of WW2, 1 British and the one Canadian army). Patton was given the command of the largest army of WW2 not only because he had proven himself an excellent field commander but also because he was obeying his commands despite your comment about him not obeying authority (no fault on you for thinking that as it is a common opinion). But Patton did in reality actually follow his superiors commands. For example in Sicily Patton didn't just go off on his own making his out flanking move. Patton asked the Army Group commander in charge of Sicily for the Allies, Harold Alexander and Alexander agreed with the idea and gave his go ahead on it after Patton asked. Patton was an army commander through and through and was brought up in military life and knew the importance of obeying direct commands given to junior officers. Patton knew what he was allowed to do on his own as an Army commander and what kinds of things he would need to ask for permission to do with his superiors .
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That is only if you are counting the air-force and logistics troops Montgomery also had under his command due to being an Army Group commander (a logistics heavy job). At the end of WW2 both Montgomery and Patton had the same number of divisions under their command (18). That is what I was comparing. Patton didn't have command of an air-force or the logistics forces supplying him apart from the in-division logistics which Montgomery's divisions had also. Omar Bradley, the command of the US 12th army group and had command of the logistics forces in his area of the front line like Montgomery did north of him in the 21st army group. Omar Bradley though didn't have command of the US air-forces in Western Europe like Montgomery did over the British and Canadian air-forces. The US air-force in Western Europe answered to Eisenhower. So even though Bradley had command of 4 US armies (47 divisions) compared to Montgomery's 2 armies (18 divisions), Bradley still only had command of 200,000 more men then Montgomery because the air-force under Montgomery's official command was massive (as was the US air-force in Western Europe).
Patton was controversial and also kind of overrated, but he was also a master of his craft when it came to exploitation and maneuver warfare, as he demonstrated at Sicily, during the Normandy breakout, in the Ardennes, and after bouncing the Rhine. His weakness was static warfare, which may be indicative of the Cavalry vs Infantry schools.
Courtney Hodges who was 1st Army Command I believe was either Artillery or Coastal Artillery, so different combat styles. Hodges doesn't get discussed but he was responsible for the Hurtgen Forrest operation. Which was a meat grinder campaign that ended up meaning nothing. Patton gets heat for Metz, and Helidelburg Raid as well.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Collins and Ridgeway were Corps Commanders, and Devers was an Army Group Commander, both positions above and below Patton. So, their operational positions are indirect comparisons. Also, Ridgeway commanded an Airborne Corps with different combat styles and missions altogether. The people to compare Patton with are General Hodges, General Simpson, and General Patch, the commanders of the US 1st, 9th, and 7th Armies in Europe.
Oh, FFS. STOP THESE STUPID MYTHS! Patton was NOT a great General. He never once excelled at attacking a strongly held position. He stalled in Tunisia. He didn't communicate with the navy and got hundreds of airborne troops killed by friendly fire in Sicily. Then, by running off to Palermo against orders, he managed to leave Monty's flank open, and instead of cutting the enemy troops on the western side of the island off, he drove them before him back to Messina, where 100,000 enemy troops and equipment got off to the mainland. It's probably this, more than the other mistakes, that led to him being sidelined for Overlord. And that myth takes the cake! "Patton was soooo good, he was more valuable as a decoy, than actually leading an Army for the MOST IMPORTANT OPERATION OF THE WESTERN EUROPEAN THEATRE!" I mean, really?!? No. He stalled again when he hit opposition in Lorraine, where, once again, his poor grasp of logistics slowed him down, and his inability to concentrate force where needed got him stopped time and again. He stalled at Metz for THREE MONTHS, and for all I know, he'd still be there if he hadn't got ordered to relieve Bastogne! Then there's the Hammelburg raid. Easily the most overrated, pompous, self serving, self promoting General of WW2, and possibly of all time. A terrible and unimaginative leader in attack, who just yelled at his subordinates to do something till they put ill prepared, poorly planned piecemeal attacks out to shit him up. He cost thousands of US lives for little gain.
About 20 years ago, I was on a cruise and assigned to a dinner table with an older couple. The man, a great guy, was a Jewish man from NY City, and had been in WW II and was at Kasserine Pass, where he said the "Germans kicked the hell out of us." He said they "lured us up into these canyons and tore us to pieces. If it was a football game we lost 50 - 0." Being a student of WW II, I asked if his commander was Lloyd Friedendall. He was stunned and asked how I knew that. He claimed that Friedendall was a friend of George Marshall and lived in an underground bunker 50 miles away from the front lines and was a poor general. Friedendall was fired after Kasserine and Patton was his replacement. He told me that there was an instant culture change. He said they were up at 5:00 a.m. and trained every day like maniacs well past dark. He said Patton went out of his way to meet every soldier, drilled with his men, would show up out of the blue and sleep in fox holes with privates and promised his men, that he would be on the front lines with them at all times. He said they regained their confidence and then fought very well and Patton was relentless in their training and they came to adore him. He was involved in the invasion of Sicily and then fought in Italy where he was wounded. He said that being Jewish he deeply feared being captured by the Germans. He told me Patton was a rare leader of great charisma and that it's hard to explain the incredible effect he had on a demoralized army.
Some of this is BS. 1) Harry Yeide went into the German archives and discovered that the majority of the German Generals had never even heard of Patton. 2) Patton was not regarded as a great leader. However, he was recognized for being very strong in pursuit/rolling fights. Thomas E Rick's has some good info on this
You forgot the part where he sent a single battalion behind German lines in April 1945 to free his son in law from a pow camp and the whole thing was a disaster. Most of the men were killed or captured and they didn’t even save his son in law. He should never have used his command to achieve personal goals that ran contrary to the real war strategy.
His entire WW2 career was using his command to achieve personal goals that ran contrary to strategy. Sicily - runs off to Palermo for the photo op, leaving Monty's flank open, and allowing 100,000 enemy troops and equipment to escape to the mainland. Metz, knows that it should be bypassed, but also knows that no-one since Attila has taken it, so wastes three months and thousands of lives for it. Glory hungry, self promoting rich arsehole.
@@Emil.Fontanot He was temporarily checked but he did overcome both. You can argue he was a tactical and strategic nitwit at both by the use of too direct concentrated force under those circumstance. I agree, but both were a result of Patton's overconfidence after having won several battles prior which was, IMO his biggest and most problematic attribute. Patton believed, especially in Metz, that the Germans would fall back after a short skirmish and abandon the town(s). If Patton had not been so arrogant in those instances to the point of ignoring his own #1 rule (never ignore your intel). Regarding his only real loss of the war, his attempted liberation of a POW camp, that was another WTF and completely out of character blunder even a rookie likely would not have made. Honestly, that one is a real head scratcher. Why he sent such an outrageously small detachment to liberate a well fortified and equipped POW camp defies understanding.
@@tedwojtasik8781 his overconfidence was based on nothing. The only battles he fought before the campaigns in France was the Battle of El Guettar(an indecisive battle at best) and the Sicilian campaign, in which he barely met any opposition and still failed to stop the Axis evacuation.
I think Patton is greatly overrated, mostly due to the inaccurate, but very entertaining, Hollywood film about him starring the great George. C. Scott. In reality Patton first comes to notice in 1942 in North Afica where he takes over from Fredandall after the debacle of the Kaserine pass. However, even with Patton in command he still didn't achieve any of his objectives. Later in Sicily he is charged with protecting Montgomery's left flank while Montys 8th Army pushes the Nazis up the west coast. Yet right at the time Monty sees an opportunity for Patton to advance behind the retreating Germans and cut them off, Patton decides to go in the completely opposite direction while wilfully ignoring all Montys messages. He then captures Palermo on the opposite side of the island far away from the action. Palermo is of no strategic importance and even US General Bradley admitted it was a just waste of time taking it. After allowing the Germans to escape Patton then goes up the only good road on the island to Massina the German embarkation point, but by the time he gets there they have all gone. Though Patton claims he won the 'Race to Messina', despite there being no race. In fact Monty had asked him to take the faster less defended road to Messina in order to get there quicker. While in Sicily Patton had also ordered his soldiers not to take any prisoners and many POW were shot in cold blood. He also attacked two of his own soldiers in a Hostpital who he claimed were cowards. Patton had to be restrained by doctors and other medical staff. After the successful conquest of Sicily, Montgomery was awarded the highest award Eisenhower could bestow on a foreign soldier. While Patton was releaved of his command and put on humdrum duties away from the conflict.
>"Yet right at the time Monty sees an opportunity for Patton to advance behind the retreating Germans and cut them off, Patton decides to go in the completely opposite direction while wilfully ignoring all Montys messages" Not true. Not true at all. Montgomery's attack on the south side of the island had stalled, and his sudden intrusion into 7th Army lines had bought enough time for the Germans to retreat and form a new defensive perimeter around Mt Etna. Meanwhile, Patton's liberation of Palermo was co-signed by Alexander, Montgomery's superior. It was necessary to bring supplies in to support the advance along the northern coast considering that the attack in the south was going poorly. Moreover, there were no major longitudinal roads (that the 7th Army wasn't already using) that would have permitted cutting off retreating Axis forces. Finally, I'm not sure what mysterious "undefended road to Messina" you're referring to, but you just need to look at a map to see that there were only three major roads extending east. One was in the 8th Army's area of operation, and the other two were in fact being used by the 7th Army (one along the north coast and one going through Troina). Blaming Patton for any kind of failure on Sicily is Anglo cope. It was Montgomery's plan and his plan called for the 8th Army to reach Messina first. Yet it only stopped being "a race" after the 8th Army couldn't make the progress Montgomery hoped for, then suddenly it was the 7th Army's responsibility to take Messina and prevent the Germans from evacuating, and failure to do so would of course be pinned on the 7th Army and Patton. Awfully convenient for Montgomery and his stans...
@@redaug4212 As US General Oma Bradley said at the time, taking Palermo was a waste of time as it was of no strategic importance what so ever. Also Patton only got permission from General Alexander retrospectively, ie some time AFTER he had already issued his orders to take it. Therefore, Alexander only gave permission later to keep the peace, he was a very diplomatic commander operating in very volatile and challenging circumstances. Because, Patton was just out for glory, he wasn't concerned with winner the battle for Sicily swiftly and efficiently by a coordinated effort. He concidered he was in competition with Montgomery not an integral part of the same Army with the same objectives. That's no way to fight a war, and no way to treat an Ally And along with his other shortcomings that I detailed in my first comment, are some of the reasons I consider he is grossly overrated, though there is much more criticism of him I could offer.
@@johnbrereton5229 Omar Bradley isn't the sole authoritative opinion on the subject. It's well known that Bradley was not on good terms with Patton, and was critical of nearly every action taken as part of Patton's command. >"Patton only got permission from General Alexander retrospectively, ie some time AFTER he had already issued his orders to take it." Wrong. Alexander issued orders for Patton's "recon in force" to cut the northern coast and clear the western end of the island on July 18. Only *two days* after Patton's forces liberated Agrigento and Porto Empedocle; as part of Alexander's initial orders to extend west. For all Alexander knew, Patton's forces were still trying to capture these initial objectives in that two day period. Clearly Patton's initiative EXCEEDED Alexander's expectations and called for a revised plan since the 8th Army's advance was not going as well as expected. Ask yourself this, if Alexander disagreed with Patton's plans reorient the initiative to the north, then why would he order Patton to clear the western end of the island several days before Palermo was close to being taken? Why wouldn't he just order Patton to keep a small force in place on the northern road to keep Italian units from retreating east? It doesn't matter how Patton viewed the battle or his collogues. Semantics compared to the bigger picture. Montgomery's plan to have the 8th Army be the sword and the 7th Army the shield failed. Then, the directive to bully the 7th Army out of its area of operations (where it was making progress) so Montgomery could have more wiggle room to salvage his plan also failed. It was opening up the northern route that succeeded in preventing the battle from continuing any longer than it did. Obviously this is not a slight against British and Canadians troops. They certainly had some of the most difficult objectives, but GB can't always be this perfect source of strategic brilliance that some people seem to believe it is. Sometimes they make mistakes, like any other nation.
@@redaug4212 Patton was Bradley superior in Sicily and yes, he often criticized Patton, but why ? Because Patton deserved much criticism. After Sicily, Patton was relived of his command by Eisenhower his friend, and wasn't allowed back untill Normandy. However, Bradley was now given command and Patton was now under him, what does that tell you ?
He was definitely brave and smart but a hard ass nonetheless, which you have to be in war. In WW1 he crawled through No Mans Land and mapped the best route for his tanks to take before an assault, he’s a major badass who you have to respect
@@matthewgabbard6415 Hard to measure such effectiveness in an objective way. Esp as Patton was two ranks below Monty and so had different responsibilities. I'm not sure that Patton could have pulled off the largest, most complex invasion in history like Monty did.
In my opinion Patton was very tactical but wouldn’t stop till his plans fell through even if throwing men and tanks at the enemy meant reaching his goals
@@paulbabcock2428 The Siege of Metz in the fall of 1944; Patton was dead-set on taking the city and fortress, but if he’d gone around it, would’ve been faster and more efficient all-round
I wouldn't agree with that characterization of Patton. Patton didn't suffer any defats of significance. By the end of WW2 Patton's 3rd army was the largest Army of WW2 out of any country making up 18 US divisions (US divisions were among the largest of the war with only British divisions in general being larger. US divisions were also the closest to their paper strength of any nation in WW2) and with the largest army of WW2 he also had by far the highest kill to death ratio (including casualties so injured and captured troops that the 3rd army suffered and injured and captured of the Germans). So that is why I wouldn't agree with your characterization of Patton in your comment. Since Patton was not just throwing men to their deaths. Even when he was attacking hard to take positions he was doing so while other units under his command were advancing on the flanks allowing Patton to surround the Axis troops over and over again.
@@bruenor316 As I was saying in my reply to the OP Patton was not ever just sending men to their deaths with a front on attack for no reason. He was still sending his divisions forward and around Axis positions repeatedly surrounding Axis units over and over again all through his time in WW2. Patton's' 3rd army had by far the highest ratio of killed, injured and captured caused compared to his own men's casualties. All Army commanders of WW2 who had command for any significant period of time and wasn't just on the defense the whole time had to launch attacks against well defended positions like Metz. It was just part of the war. I'll make an example using Montgomery (since that is who Patton has been compared to since even before WW2 ended) and Montgomery launched attacks against dug-in Axis positions as well. The largest mistake the Western Allies had against the Germans in WW2 was not Market Garden but the failure to take the Scheldt Estuary of Antwerp (the failure to take it is what caused Market Garden to happen). Despite Montgomery being told countless times by so many officers in both the US and British militaries of it's importance including by Eisenhower and Bertram Ramsey (the man most important for the Western allied plans of what to do during D-Day and after) Montgomery still ignored those warnings that he needed to take the Estuary (he blamed not taking it on the Canadians). Since the Estuary was not taken the Allies could still not use the vital port of Antwerp. Without that port the allies could only bring in enough supplies for 1 army to make an offensive which is what led to Market Garden happening. After Market Garden failed though Montgomery was ordered to complete his original orders to take the Scheldt Estuary. But because Montgomery didn't take those islands when he was supposed to the Germans had gotten troops onto them and dug in on them. This forced Montgomery to make some of the most heroic and deadly single day attacks of WW2. Montgomery led those attacks with the Canadians with the British taking some of the smaller islands and those attacks were forced front on attacks via beach landings right into German positions. Those islands were of such importance because without them Allied ships could not go in to dock at Antwerp. The allies would take them after suffering major casualties. The taking of those islands allowed Eisenhower to supply all 3 of his Army Groups in France with enough supplies to attack with all 3. This then led to the Allies being able to break into Germany in multiple directions. Prior to getting access to use Antwerp as a harbor the only harbors the allies could use were the D-Day landing beaches and Cherbourg . Antwerp was the largest and most important port of Western Europe (probably all of Europe and maybe even the world) and the Germans could not block it off like they did with other harbors because of how deep the water in the harbor was. But if the Germans controlled those islands it would prevent any ship from getting to Antwerp (looking at a map of the Estuary makes this much easier to understand). And all the other Western allied army group and army commanders had to make attacks on positions the Axis were dug into as well. Europe is not like the Pacific where you can avoid many battles. The allies could do that with ports because even before D-Day the plan was to just use the D-Day beaches and Cherbourg until they could take Antwerp and then with Antwerp they could bring all their supplies for all 8 Armies (5 American, 1 British, 1 Canadian and 1 French army) in Western Europe under Eisenhower's command. That is how big and important Antwerp was. But for inland positions the Allies had to often attack Axis forces dug into cities. The Soviets had been doing it from Stalingrad onwards. So Patton attacking Axis forces in a city should just be thought of as normal. And at the same time Patton was attacking Metz he was still advancing his massive 3rd Army all over Europe in the territory of his front. But Metz was a vital transportation position had had to eventually be taken to allow enough trains to run through Patton's positions to keep up the supply of his Army.
@@PhillyPhanVinny Remarkable comment. Simply impressive analysis. I'd be surprised to think it came from an amateur historian. I had a sneaking suspicion that the reason Market Garden happened was a prior strategic failure rather than Montgomery's possible (not yet confirmed) autism and his stubbornness in the face of the recommendations.
Most great field commanders run afoul of their superiors from time to time for following their instincts over orders. If they are successful it can usually be forgiven. They have an acute sense of the enemy's moral and abilities to punish overly aggressive actions and will strike them hard at the correct moment. I'm sure this behavior drives the high command crazy, but you can't force exceptional people to be mediocre any more than you can force mediocre people to be exceptional.
He was fine in operations requiring drive, energy and aggression, but failed badly when a tactical approach was required. It's interesting you fail to mention the battle of Metz, and Patton's attempt to capture Fort Driant. He charged the objective like a bull at a gate and got badly mauled, despite Omar Bradley's advice to simply bypass the fort and leave it to wither on the vine.
Or Ike and Bradley could have just supplied Patton's command enough of the fuel it needed earlier so it can take Metz with much less resistance than they did?
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- You forgot how the fuel situations still tenuous for the 3rd Army even after they received enough of their fuel to get moving again and how Metz being secured would really ease that situation. Besides that Patton's orders were to after all consolidate the Allied hold on Moselle river and Lorraine valley.
@@markgarrett3647 It’s myth that any petrol was taken from Patton for Montgomery. Patton was already at a standstill before planning for Market Garden even started. Patton finally began receiving adequate supplies on September 4, (two weeks before MG) after a week’s excruciating pause” - Harry Yeide Market Garden only had priority in extra supply transport laid on. It didn’t take away any actual supplies from any US army. Nor did Market Garden stop all operations on the western front. Patton’s 3rd Army was still trying to take Metz and US 1st Army began its Hurtgen Forest campaign on September 19th, 2 days after Market Garden began. Did you know that the twin pronged US 1st Army attack in the Hurtgen Forest and Aachen in October 1944 used FOUR TIMES as many men and supplies as the ground element of Market Garden, which wasn’t even a full 2nd British Army attack? “ It was commonly believed at Third Army H.Q. that Montgomery's advance through Belgium was largely maintained by supplies diverted from Patton. (See Butcher, op. cit., p. 667.) This is not true. The amount delivered by the ' air-lift ' was sufficient to maintain only one division. No road transport was diverted to aid Montgomery until September 16th. On the other hand, three British transport companies, lent to the Americans on August 6th " for eight days," were not returned until September 4th.' “ - CHESTER WILMOT THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE. 1954 P 589
He saved lives with his standing order to always attack. Keep the enemy off balance so they don't have a chance to dig in to form a defense. Unquestionably the best Allied field commander of WWII. I had 2 great uncles who served in the 3rd army and they had nothing but good things to say about their commanding General.
He was capable but certainly not your best, otherwise Marshall and the Chiefs would have promoted him above Bradley And we had Lt Generals that were as good if not better Morshead , Lumsden, Horrocks, Dempsey , Andersen [who by the way was the man that got Patton out of a hot spot El Guerre ]. Patton had great propaganda that kept him n the limelight back home He had great Charisma
@@jacktattis After the slapping incident and several gaffe's in the press, Patton was never going to reach the upper echelon as those US Generals with political skills. But Ike and Marshall sure respected his skills as a pure field commander when they could have easily sent him home several times. He brought victories to the US at a time when they were badly needed in North Africa and Sicily. Performed with distinction in the ETO. And will be remembered in history for all time. Not too shabby for an old horse soldier.
@@jameslonano5659 North Africa ?????? He did not take over until the end of the debacle that was at the Kasserine Pass. The German Army was in full retreat. Andersen aided Patton at El Guerre and the result was a draw not a defeat.
I don't get people who castigate Patton and MacArthur for the whole bonus army thing. What were they supposed to do? Disobey direct orders from the President and risk being discharged or permanently demoted because they could not foresee how wildly unpopular their actions would be in 90 years?
@@redaug4212 actually president Hoover didn't order it, and he was very angry at MacArthur, wanting to sack him, but was told but other generals and advisors said that with the great depression going on, it would make people possibly lose to much confidence in that the president, since he couldn't control his own generals. Mac's sacking in the korean war was a long time coming. Now reportedly the event strained Pattons and MacArthur's relationship but I havent verified this.
@@swampdonkey1567 Hoover ordered the first attack on the encampment, but yes, MacArthur continued to attack despite Hoover's order to stop. Now whether this was this done deliberately or due to miscommunication is not clear. Some of MacArthur's subordinates at the time (including Eisenhower) stated that the halt orders were never received. What's interesting is that the man responsible for relaying these orders to MacArthur, General George Moseley, was an ardent national socialist who believed the bonus army to be a communist coup. With a little speculation, I think it's quite possible that Moseley intentionally withheld the orders so MacArthur would obliviously destroy the rest of the bonus army. Which isn't to absolve MacArthur of any wrongdoing of course. I'm sure he could have been less zealous in his tactical approach.
The whole War started because Hitler violated Poland's sovereignty and yet the tragic irony about the end of the war is that we allowed Stalin to keep what we told Hitler he could not have.
Yes, Patton was a racist. No dispute. What is surprising is that he was considerably less racist than many of the other American generals at the time. People comment on his racism today because many of the black soldiers who served under him in WW2 believed that he wasn't racist and that he treated them like equals. He didn't view them as equals but he gave them credit for a lot more good qualities (like being good soldiers and very courageous, etc.) than most of the other (far more racist) generals at that time.
He's a bit like one of those Rockstar's who died before they made any truly awful albums. It would be interesting to see if his reputation would be the same today had he stuck around and pissed everyone off for another 20-30 odd years after the war.
@@renard801 He was a traditional General that way. Way back when corporal punishment was an acceptable method of disciplining troops who conducted themselves badly.
@@markgarrett3647 The first man had malaria and a dangerously high temperature of 102. The other had shell-shock, a medically recognised condition since WWI. How is that "conducting themselves badly"? Corporal punishment wasn't acceptable in 1943. Neither was a general literally kicking a sick soldier out of a hospital, or pulling his gun on another and threatening to shoot him, on both occasions screaming obscenities. Acceptable? Eisenhower and Marshall were incensed. Ike wrote Patton that he deserved to be broken, and would have been in peacetime. Even the respected veteran Pershing condemned Patton's conduct. Officers do not maintain discipline or command respect by assaulting private soldiers.
Patton was a bumbler. He roared around the countryside wasting gas and rounding up isolated garrisons of German supply troops. Meanwhile, Montgomery stood toe to toe with Germany's best units and gave them hell.
Plus, Hollywood gave so much of Ridgway's glory to Patton to pump his image up. His role at the Battle of the Bulge and even in Italy were totally ignored by that film so that Patton could be transformed into an all-conquering folk hero. Hollywood does a better job of rewriting history than anyone but the CCP and the former Soviet Union. I say that as an American.
My neighbor marched under Patton he didn't like him at all. Thought he was a glory chaser that didn't care about his own mens welfare. Said all of the men in his unit hated him and they'd take pop shots at his jeep. Patton always thought it was the Germans. Said he'll never forget how cold his feet would get when they get done fighting one battle and he rushed to another front. 100 mi away and they force March guys would lose their feet.
Patton was right about the Soviets. Too bad the Allies failed to heed his warnings. Patton had the right ideas to fight a war. A leader is not supposed to be loved by their troops, they are supposed to push their men beyond what they can do. I think Bradley hold Patton back too many times. Glad that the Germans feared him more.
The thing that really annoys me about these Patton myths, is rubbish like "the strategically important fortress of Metz". It wasn't important. He could have gone round and cut it off! As a so called "great cavalry commander", as he admitted later, he SHOULD have gone around. But no, he wanted to be the first guy since Attila to take it, and thousands die, his advance stalls, and the Germans regroup for the Bulge. And Georgie Boy never goes that way into Germany, anyway! Quit the mythology. Patton was barely competent.
you would have to say both. he was great at fast moving armored forces, but not so well at slower, set piece type battles. the 7th army did not really get a chance to learn that his fast moving tactics often saved more lives than they cost. 3rd army had a chance to learn this and they respected and even loved him, because he gave them a better chance of going home than many other generals.
@Ken, 3d Army also killed, captured more Axis solders, took more territory, Patton's tactics shortened the war and saved thousands of lives. Like him or not he was the best Army Gen. of WWII
@Ken, 3d Army also killed, captured more Axis solders, took more territory, Patton's tactics shortened the war and saved thousands of lives. Like him or not he was the best Army Gen. of WWII
@@rogerbean6963 how did Patton headbutting the walls of Metz help to shorten the war? How did running off to Palermo and allowing 100,000 enemy troops escape from Sicily help to shorten the war? How did Task Force Baum help to shorten the war? How did failing to take objectives in Tunisia shorten the war? How did shooting donkeys shorten the war? How did covering up a massacre shorten the war?
@@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85 Maybe Ike should have given more of the gas to the 3rd. than to 1st. that was charged with supporting Monty's Market Garden pipe dream so the 3rd. can take Metz earlier and with little to no resistance?
It seems like the ones that loved him were never directly under him. The more I Iearn about him, the more I think he is severely overrated, and I think a lot of the key victories he had as he climbed the ranks were "easy" wins.
I think he was the man you wanted to win you a fight… it’s not the size dog 🐕 in a fight but the size of the fight in a dog… but George s Patton was no politician and his ego meant he even fought his friends and allies. Bradley and Eisenhower tried to help but he struggled to help himself
He was a glory hound, like most of the other generals. He would throw his men into any fight. Regardless of enemy numbers. Eisenhower chewed him out several times for his antics.his men said his guts, our blood.........
Overblown in the sense most German commanders never heard of him. Also overblown in the sense that other than in Sicily Patton and Monty were never equals.
@@markgarrett3647 … German Generals fighting him knew about Patton. Knowing was required for them and their intel officers. It would have been unprofessional and not in the Prussian military tradition to be otherwise. But only 1/4 of the German Army was in NW Europe. The bulk of German combat Generals were commanding on the Eastern Front. Patton wasn’t on their professional radar
My grandfather despised Patton, even more after he assaulted those soldiers in the hospital suffering from shell shock (PTSD as we now call it). He considered Patton a big bully who should never had the chance to lead.
This video correctly notes that a series of massacres committed by GIs in Sicily are among the most controversial of Patton's career and yet among the least known to the pubic probably because they were overshadowed by the so-called slapping incidents featured in the movie Patton. The massacres at the Biscari airfield July 1943 were committed by Capt Compton and NCO West. Both were court marshalled. Compton was acquitted and returned to duty but was KIA shortly thereafter. West was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, but Ike commuted his sentence to time served after a year and West was returned to duty and survived the war. At trial both claimed that Patton's pre Husky pep talks to the 45th Division had a "take no prisoners" theme and inspired them to kill dozens of disarmed and non-resisting Italian POWs with a couple of Germans. Was Patton responsible? There is no doubt Patton tried to cover up the massacres even advising that weapons be planted on the dead POWs corpses (consciousness of guilt) and then only court marshalled West and Compton at Omar Bradley's insistence. I have looked at the case a lot and I have yet to make up my mind on Patton's responsibility if any. Unfortunately, there is no recording of his pre-invasion pep talks to the 45th but there is no doubt, like in the movie Patton, his pep talks could cross the line and imply no mercy to the enemy even when surrendering. On the other hand Patton was correct to urge intense suspicion of surrendering Germans. Germans were known to stage phony surrenders that were really ambushes and the Hermann Goering Division (stationed in Sicily) was notorious for that. So he could be seen as justified in telling his troops to distrust surrendering enemy. But those massacred were 90% Italian not German and no question they had been disarmed and non-resisting.
Patton's major success was his drive through Britany, however, it was successful because there were virtually no Germans there. Especially, there were no tanks, they were all facing the British and Canadian forces advancing from Caen. His thrusting cavalry stile soon came to a stop at Metz where the Germans stood to fight. He was not particularly liked by his men, who quoted 'His guts, our blood' Montgomery did not 'despise' Patton, he probably never even gave him much consideration.
That's the point. His armour-heavy command was meant to hit the enemy troops where they're least prepared and densely concentrated and win with far less casualties in comparison to a WWI-type set piece battle favoured by a certain General who was called by the historian Jonathan Parshall a wretched Human being.
He was a brilliant leader but a poor follower and ultimately he became a bigger liability than an asset to his superiors. If he survived the war I would be very curious to see how his career finished, I suspect it would have ended on a down note similarly to MacArthur. Despise his controversies, I greatly admire his ability to lead men
How Ike treated Patton was a disgrace and later a foreshadowing of how he would throw Nixon under the bus as a politician after the fake reporting of his supposedly secret campaign funds surfaced.
I think he's way overrated , its easy to be daring against an already defeated enemy . And he was way too lose with the rules himself while being strict on everyone else
Monty: My plan would give us victory after a minimum time of 6 months and maximum of 12 months and involves lots and lots of carpet bombing and complex artillery barrages.
Monty I think had been scarred by his experience of the carnage of the First World War as a junior officer. Tactics then involved frontal assaults on heavily defended positions or alternatively subbornly resisting attacks by the Germans and facing the hell of heavy artillery bombardment. Monty had also been seriously wounded in that conflict. He was determined unlike Patton to try to minimise soldier deaths and casualties rather like military doctrine today.
Patton was Custer with internal combustion engines instead of horses. If he'd commanded smaller units like a division or regiment he might have met the same fate as Custer. He was a good, aggressive battlefield commander but not the guy for "big picture" strategy. Patt,like Custer, was a lousy administrator and a pain in the ass to his men and superiors.
Men make two mistakes in life. One believing a great general or warrior Equals a moral person. They usually don’t. The second one We think a woman is as beautiful in the inside as she is beautiful on the outside.
Not underrated. Not overrated. Just fairly decent and fully competent. Plus its not like he was fighting the best of german forces. The real deal fought marvelously and valiantly but perished at eastern front.
Basically Patton took on the role envisioned for cavalry in WW1 - exploitation. Where there was a weakness and an opportunity to drive through the enemy and just keep going, Patton was your man. Where you needed to break through strong defenses, get somebody else in.
Fun fact: During WW1, future President Truman was in an artillery regiment that supported Pattons tanks during a battle but the two wouldn't meet until after the war was over. Another fun fact, Truman's eyesight was poor enough to deny him service, so to get in he memorized the eye sight test and fooled his recruiters.
Tbh Patton ended up the same way as Romania WW1 General Ion Dragalina. Gravely wounded during an ambush shortly before the war was over if memory serves.
I have read extensively about WW2 and the military leaders. None of them were perfect. None. What a surprise that human frailties show up in military leaders. With regard to Paton, would you rather have him on your side or fight against him?
That's a big "if". They didn't know who he was. Before D-Day, they had whole dossiers on Ike, Monty & Bradley, but nothing on Patton. He barely got mentioned until Balck criticised his "timid and cautious" leadership during the Lorraine campaign.
That's a myth, brother. The Germans didn't give a fuck about him. The ones that received most attention by the Germans were Monty, Eisenhower and Bradley because they were the main Western Allies commanders, why would the Germans care about a single Army general?
I'm an old Army veteran. Despite differences between Patton and Montgomery, they were very similar. Both were very full of themselves, but they had successes and failures. The fact that they were with the soldiers and respected by them, makes for good leadership. But there were better commanders than them, who weren't trying to glorify themselves
Victor Davis Hanson has a lecture on YT about Patton. He gave three examples of when higher command should've listened to Patton, but didn't. An example was the "relief of Bastogne". Patton argued that the smart play was not to drive to Bastogne and punch through to rescue the defenders. The smart play was to go in behind the Germans, encircle and cut off their supply lines. That would've taken thousands of Germans and their equipment out of the war permanently. But he was overruled.
It's refreshing to read so many comments pointing out that Patton was not a particularly great general. His reputation owes largely to his personal bs, his adoring Press Corps, and a brilliant but inaccurate movie.
@@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85 True history fans would note how the Third Army got more stuff done than the entire 21st. Army group at Normandy and beyond with less.
@@markgarrett3647 " True history fans would note how the Third Army got more stuff done than the entire 21st. Army group at Normandy and beyond with less." Against what opposition exactly? Monty and Bradley did the leg work of what happened in Normandy. They destroyed the German army, Patton fought left over units. 21st Army advanced 350 miles in 6 days, it took Patton 2 weeks to advance 60 miles. The third army is overrated.
Patton was a rash commander who suffered many more casualties than were necessary. His actions at the Battle of the Bulge are overrated as the Airborne division had the situation stabilized before Patton's men could arrive. His assault on patients suffering from shell shock is inexcusable and should have resulted not only in dismissal but court martial. He also dismissed great soldiers such as Teddy Roosevelt Jr. a man who proved his excellence at Utah Beach. Patton should be remembered as a sick man (he even had visions) who was an adequate commander. If he had been a soldier as his Uncle who died at Gettysburg, he may have been remembered as the USA best soldier ever.
The guy was a disgrace to the uniform. The soldiers who fought under Patton called him the butcher and old blood and guts, because they hated his guts and that’s a fact that is often misinterpreted.
George "the butcher" Patton is not just one of the most overrated generals of ww2 but possibly one of the worst US generals too. He was impulsive and reckless, he absolutely obsessed with his own personal image and glory that he had no hesitation wasting hundreds of thousands of his own men in order to boost his fame. And no I did not pull that figure out of thing air, he literally caused over 100 THOUSAND unnecessary casualties! Let that sink in.... Patton was obsessed with Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. Patton’s rivalry with Montgomery went beyond mere professional competition; it was a personal fixation that significantly influenced Patton’s actions and mindset during the war. This rivalry was not reciprocated; Montgomery did not rate Patton as a commander, he believed that he was reckless, undisciplined, threw his men's lives away unnecessarily and did not understand war on a strategic scale, there is no evidence whatsoever that Monty saw Patton as a rival. During the Sicilian campaign Patton was so desperate to beat "that limey prick" that he needlessly sacrificed many of his men to satisfy his ego. His relentless pace often led to poorly coordinated attacks, overextended supply lines, and engagements in high-risk operations that prioritized speed over the safety and strategic positioning of his forces. His focus on winning the symbolic race rather than adhering strictly to coordinated Allied plans exposed his men to unnecessary dangers and contributed to significant losses that might have been mitigated with a more cautious approach. The US 7th army was not only up against an opposition inferior in number and quality (most of the elite German divisions were focused on stopping the British 8th army in the East) the 7th Army also had the advantage of navigating through MUCH easier terrain in western and northern Sicily, which included broader plains and coastal roads, whereas the British 8th has a narrow corridor through mountain passes. Despite this, the casualties sustained by both the Us and British armies are almost at parity. Patton's drive through Lorraine and the costly battle for Metz were marked by strategic miscalculations and unnecessary sacrifices, particularly evident in his decision to directly assault the fortress city despite its limited strategic value. The German forces defending Metz were not elite troops but rather a mix of invalids, older soldiers, and understrength units; yet, they were able to exploit the city's formidable fortifications and the adverse weather to inflict heavy casualties on Patton's forces. The U.S. Third Army suffered around 50,000 casualties during the Lorraine Campaign, with the battle for Metz alone accounting for significant losses. General Otto von Knobelsdorff, the German commander, was quoted expressing disbelief at Patton's strategy, stating that “A direct attack on Metz was unnecessary… a swerve northward in the direction of Luxemburg and Bitburg would have met with greater success” and could have collapsed the German right flank more effectively. 50,000 unnecessary casualties for a strategically insignificant target. As a point of reference, casualties during the "disastrous" Market garden were 17,000! Patton's ego and poor grasp on military strategy cause almost 3 times the amount of casualties that occurred at Market Garden. Patton’s much revered drive to relieve Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. Patton’s rush was characterized by an impulsive, high-risk approach that exposed his troops to severe weather, logistical issues, and heavy enemy fire, resulting in approximately 5,000 casualties-losses that were largely avoidable had Patton opted for a more measured strategy. Despite the drama of the operation, the 101st Airborne Division, under Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, was far from being on the verge of collapse; their well-coordinated defense and high morale demonstrated their resilience and also the recklessness of Patton's actions. Many within the 101st later reflected that they were managing their situation effectively, with some stating, “We were in no way desperate,” which underscores that Patton’s intervention was not the critical rescue it was often portrayed to be. Patton’s decision to drive his Third Army northward was driven by his characteristic recklessness and an eagerness for a personal fame, rather than a deep understanding of broader strategic needs. His manoeuvre strained supply lines, overstretched his forces, and diverted attention from more coordinated and sustainable efforts, highlighting his frequent prioritization of personal glory over sound military strategy. This rush exposed his tendency to act impulsively, often placing his men in dangerous situations that could have been mitigated by more strategic foresight and cautious planning. The total lack of value he showed towards his men's lives caused 5000 casualties.
If Patton was so successful at leading his troops why were they routed at the Kasserine Pass that required the British to come down and support the Americans? As for the Germans being in awe of him, this is based on reports asked of the German Generals when they had been captured after the war. You're in American captivity and asked who is the best general you're not likely to say Zukhov! In the Battle of the Bulge Patton's troops had to contain the German assault. The main concentration of fighting was in the North as that was where the direction of the attack was headed. It was aimed at the port of Antwerp. Montgomery had the Americans in that area placed under his command as their headquarters had disappeared!
My great uncle Nick fought under Patton in Africa. His military career ended with a head injury after Anzio. While in military hospital he met my great aunt Sylvia and they went on to live over 40 years together. We fondly called him major Nick and he would tell his stories of what it was like to be a soldier in Patton's army. He had nothing but great respect! Rest in peace Nick
Anzio is the Italy campaign and it wasn't pretty, another one of Montgomerys/Churchills mistakes. US got the worst of it there.
@@rosiehawtrey You mean the US was unable to take over the campaign and grab all the credit-so instead trashed it.
Rosie Hawtree
Montgomery had nothing to do with Anzio. Montgomery was planning the successful invasion of Normandy at the time.
@@rosiehawtrey
Lol! It literally had nothing to do with Montgomery who was in Britain replanning D-Day and the strategy for Normandy.
More evidence that people simply don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to Montgomery.
Hopefully your uncle voted for Trump -- Parton's reincarnation
Patton was the pinnacle of the man you had to respect, but not necessarily like.
He’s the guy you would follow, not because you loved him, but because he always knew what the hell he was doing.
Cream always appears at the top Patton was not quite there.
@@jacktattisdross ends up on top as well. It's not always just cream that rises to the top
@@mageckman My friend there were better than Patton Is that plain enough
@@jacktattis I agree. I am not saying that Patton is the end all be all of World War 2 generals .I was merely saying that crap floats to the top as well. Montgomery being my case in point.
@@mageckman Yes many people did not like Monty. However at one point he Commanded 2 US armies as well as his own 20th Army Group which Patton never done. Hodges did not like it but I think it was Simpkins who got on well with Montgomery
Just think of it a arrogant Limey General in charge of two US Armies
Unheard of however Eisenhower did it
I imagine he was good to some, bad to others . His 3 month Metz Lorraine Campaign has been revisited and is not considered a great Campaign these days Hodges Devers were plodders but achieved as much on their Fronts in a shorter time
He was using Metz to blood green troops. It was not a failure of leadership. There is a reason 3rd Army had the lowest casualty rat of any US Army in the ETO!
@@ethanperks372 Im pretty sure Devers had the least casualties
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I wouldn't argue! I remember a response to a statement condemning Patton as a butcher. It stated thar the only Commander with a lower casualty rate than Patton was MacArthur. Further, Devers rarely had direct command of troops. After D-Day he commanded 6th Army Group. As such he was in overall command of the landings in Southern France. Eventually commanding 7th Army and the French First Army. So one cannot compare casualties between an Army and an Army Group. I do feel Devers was a progressive officer. Had Ike listened to him more IMO US casualties would have been less than they were
He was great in combat, but thinking that the US shouldn't have stopped Hitler was idiotic. Nazis were clearly terrible but he somehow missed that.
He didn't miss that. He was an anti-Semitic rich boy, from a Confederate background. Of course he sympathised with racist rich pricks in grey uniforms!
Sigh. Not what he said. Removing every Nazi party member from government or civil service was unworkable is what he said and he was right. Because like it or not, almost every single person in Germany was a member by that point, practically by law. A famous example was Wernher Freiherr von Braun - you might remember him - latterly ran NASA. Nazi Assisted Space Americans.
Sigh. Not what he said. Removing every Nazi party member from government or civil service was unworkable is what he said and he was right. Because like it or not, almost every single person in Germany was a member by that point, practically by law. A famous example was Wernher Freiherr von Braun - you might remember him - latterly ran NASA. Nazi Assisted Space Americans.
Your referring to the quote were he said "we marched on the wrong foe" right?"
Depends how I interpreted the quote was after arriving Germany he wished we'd make am agreement for a single germany (rather then split) to exist after the war, if they marched with the west.
If that Germany was made to be democratic, maybe wouldn't have been bad, but that's completely unrealistic.
maybe we could have came to agreement were if hitler stepped down or something we'd allow the nazi party power.
Course good luck convincing the soliders and public to go on board with this.
Patton was detached from reality if he thought these interpretations.
Still to be fair he didn't live to long after the war, not long enough to have complete idea of reality.
@@swampdonkey1567 well, that and the outright anti semitism present in conversation with journalists, letters to friends, etc. I can't link to it, but look up his letter to Charles Rodman where he calls Jewish people "sub-human".
Sadly this video is so wrong I do not have the stamina to write the essay needed to correct this collection of myths. Nevertheless some pointers. First Patton was neither feared nor even really known to the German's who feared Montgomery far more in 1944. Secondly those who despised Patton the most were the two American Commanders he fought with, General Bradley and Eisenhower who were far more pissed off that Patton took Palermo leaving Bradley's Western flank exposed in Sicily and thus failing to trap the Elite German paratroop formations who were able to escape back to Italy unscathed.
Also it was Montgomery, ironically, who insisted on Patton for 3rd Army commander. Despite their rivalry they both respected each other in their own way. Monty saw Patton as the needed 'pusher' to do the breakout even if his low opinion of Pattons grasp of logistics and strategy was proven correct. In his own diary in 1942, Patton recorded his real impression of Montgomery as 'wonderfully conceited and the first competent British Commander I have met in this war. He is a man and he knows his stuff'. Not the same as his public statements but fascinating nevertheless.
The film 'Patton' is very honest and far more realistic than this 'documentary' which focuses on myths not insight! My favorite scene is the one where Patton waits for Monty's arrival after getting to Messina first. Wonderfully humorous and honest as Monty teased Patton about having shaved that morning, hoping for a kiss, just to tease Patton. It is clear they enjoyed the rivalry and could joke with each other. Reality is far more interesting than politically motivated myths! It is too bad and pathetic that politics informs most opinions on Patton and Montgomery, not actual historical curiosity!
Even Joseph Stalin was apparently an admirer of Patton, stating that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton's rapid armored advance across France
Rapid.... advance? xD You mean that hell full of casualties, delays and frustration that the battle of Normandy was? lol
@@julenmarcossantamaria2762 Normandy was and still is the biggest naval invasion in history it’s surprising it even succeeded in the first place
@@spiritorange8325 Correct, and it was about to fail in several moments. Montgomery and Eisenhower were about to abort it mid operation several times. But yes, it succeded, in part because it hit one of the weakest parts of France coast. But again, no merit taken away, it succeeded for sure.
But that doesnt have to do with what I said at all. The battle of Normandy was hell for the allies and it wasnt "rapid" at all, as this guy said.
@@julenmarcossantamaria2762 It was somewhat fast but definitely not rapid.
I find this hard to believe, since the Red army had in operation Bagration under the command of General Rokossovsky from 22 June to 25 July 1944 had advanced from east of Minsk in Belarus all the way to the Vistula River outside Warsaw, over 650 km, and practically crushed army group center some of the best trained and equipped German forces available at the time. Meanwhile the German forces the 3rd Army went up against were primarily security units made of disabled or poorly trained troops and a German tank division with only 14 tanks. Its easy to advance rapidly when there is little opposition. He did help out with the Falaise pocket which was able to eliminate a significant amount of German equipment. I do think though that most of the German soldiers were able to escape that encirclement though.
Hypothetically speaking - if Patton had been held to the standards of the Nuremberg Trials he would have been executed for war crimes. Before the invasion of Sicily, Patton gave explicit orders to his commanders not to accept German/Italian surrender unless they did so IMMEDIATELY on first contact with American troops. At Biscari airfield in Sicily on July 14 1943, after a protracted fight two American officers massacred 73 unarmed Italian and German prisoners. Two separate court-martials were convened and at one of them the defendant was excused when he maintained that he was only doing exactly what he had been ordered to do by his commanding General and witnesses confirmed this claim.
9:04 didn’t he suggest everyone turn round and fight Russia 🇷🇺 and said you’ll have to fight them sooner or later
Yes, but he purloined the idea from Winston Churchill, another fabricated hero.
@@charlesmills6621 He didn't knick anything from anyone, he came to this conclusion based on his own observations of the Red Army and the USSR.
@@InkyBlitz
Do the research and compare dates.
In other videos ive heard that the germans thought he was a bag of wind. Also pattern was told that the germans were going to attack at the bulge. Even villagers had told the soldiers that they had seen the german build up. But pattern dismissed it. If they had lost at the bulge would have been interesting to see what they had said about him.
I think he would have been looked at better if he'd had been a civil war general. I think he was a little too gung ho for modern generalship, honestly, I'd rather fought for Montgomery.
Bradley accused Patton of poor tactics and said his idea of tactics is attack attack attack ……..Patton said Audacity Audacity Audacity…….sounds to me that old George would of allways been a successful leader as Audacious attacks were what julius Ceaser was renowned for but his troops losses would of been far higher than say other allied leaders .
An American general once said, "There goes George again, bravely advancing against nothing."
@@renard801 Which general said that
My Great Grandpa served under him in the 3rd Army
PTSD was not understood when Patton slapped soldiers in Sicily. Patton may have considered “Shell Shock”, as cowardice. Also, American have a history of finding flaws in great leader, whether true or not, even George Washington was criticized. And he was the first man to peacefully surrender leadership of a country. Patton was a military genius! He deserves honor and respect!
Excellent video.
Patton was a man of his time; it’s difficult to call him a “racist.” Moreover, the incidents that haunted him in Sicily were the direct result of what he, and other officers saw in Tunisia. There already were incidents of US troops giving no quarter. But there were quite a few cases of US troops bolting from German and Italian attacks. US troops had had no previous training in combat operations. Lloyd Fredendall was the first commander of II Corps. Largely reactive, Fredendall did not push his troops. When Eisenhower relieved Fredendall and put Patton in command, surely he knew about “Georgie” and his often petty nature. But Ike also knew that Patton was a go-getter. And Patton as commander had to instill in the men a hatred for the enemy. He didn’t want his men in Sicily to do as they often had done in Tunisia. He had to make US troops fighting men - that he achieved. Condemn him for the two slapping incidents? Sure we can, but the media made more of it than it was. But one thing it did do was to get Patton out of command in Italy. That would have been a disaster for him.
It's difficult to call someone who refers to Jews as "subhuman" a racist? Here's how easy it is: Patton was a racist. See? Not difficult at all
Patton is one of my favorite Generals in the history of the US Army. Brash, bold, eccentric, and cunning yet can be egotistic and a hard ass. I sometimes think of him as basically the World War II equivalent of George Armstrong Custer
A good tank commander, but compared to Bradley and Montgomery he faced very few German divisions.
Montgomery and Patton had different priorities. Montgomery had to preserve his troops as there were no sizeable number of replacements from a population of 45m.
Patton had almost unlimited resources in equipment at least and to a large extent men. He could go gung ho and losses could be replaced.
He was Bradley's subordinate, and commanded a smaller force than Monty. Patton, not Bradley, came up with the plan to save Bastogne.
But it took the best US Army commander of WWII, Simpson and Conquer, to work well with Monty.
As noted, because he was feared by the German brass, he was used as a lightning rod to divert German assets from main thrusts. When set free, he ran through German lines (often outrunning his supplies) but demoralizing the enemy.
@@donalddowning4108 He wasn't feared at all 🤣 the reality was that the Germans mostly ignored Patton in their strategic assessments, it was Monty and Ike that they paid attention to.
. As Yeide notes, the German commanders were not impressed by Patton’s drive to Palermo, which involved territory they had already given up. Nor were they overawed by the American performance in what he calls “smash mouth” fighting.
The Germans did not track Patton’s movements as the key to allied intentions. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists.” Hence their intelligence efforts were much more focused on people like Montgomery and Eisenhower, because this was the level on which strategic decisions were made.
One piece of the Patton story, however, is pure myth: that Patton was the subject of close scrutiny by the Germans, who anticipated his attacks in fearful admiration. General Patton was not, as his biographer Martin Blumenson wrote in The Patton Papers: 1885-1940, a “hero even to professional German officers who respected him as the adversary they most feared in battle.” Nor was he, as Ladislas Farago claimed in his book Patton, regarded by the Germans “as their most dangerous adversary in the field…. For a while the Germans watched the comings and goings of Patton like rubbernecked spectators following a tennis ball at Wimbleton.” In fact, for most of the war the Germans barely took notice.
@@richardthelionheart6924 It seems to have been propagated by the Patton film
Patton was far better than Dugout Doug.
Old "Blood and Guts" was loved by some and hated by others. My father was an officer with the 34th Div during the Louisiana summer maneuvers in 1941 prior to the start of WWII and the story circulated that Patton came upon a lineman on a telephone pole only wearing a T Shirt and pants while working 30' up. Patton , who was a stickler for dress and appearance. Got out of the Jeep, began to ream the poor fellow out cursing him and calling him a disgrace to the Army, and ordered him to come down so Patton could discipline his commanders. The guy comes down, looks at Patton, and says something to the effect "mister, I don't know what your problem is, but I work for Southwestern Bell telephone Company, so you can kiss my ass and then returned to his job. I think the problem with Patton was that the National Guard and Reserve troops thought he was a ass
Funny how he was in command of an all black tank battalion. Patton’s Black Panthers.
Why not both?
Overrated and did nothing of any note
Don’t shorten the intro music!
If the enemy rates you then that’s saying something
In the end he was human. Like all humans he had his short comings. He was around when he was needed most and did what he thought was best to win. He accurately knew who our next enemy was and wasn't shy about admitting it.
He was good leader. He just let his ego and sense of destiny get the best of him most times.
Though I think Omar Bradley was a better general all around.
Ahah if Bradley was better then that's not good for Patton. honestly i struggle to decide who was the most mediocre between the two
If Bradley is quarter good as Patton the war would have been ended half year earlier. The difference between them is Patton was born as solder, while Bradley was trained as soldier. To Patton, war was his destiny, to Bradley war was a piece of job.
My grand father who was a medic under Patton during the battle of the bulge said a lot to me " I never did like that guy." He didn't talk about the war much. I learned he was part of the clean up crew the day after D-Day. That must have scared him seeing so much death.
Day after D day the beach was still under fire.. That would suck..
No leader is perfect but Patton was the perfect leader for the armored community. He loved his men, his men loved him. Even as a current Abrams tanker we still hold patton in high praise
That love existed just during combat operations. Out of that the feelings changed.
@@caniconcananas7687
Well he was a General afterall so that's not exactly the worst circumstance.
Why? When did he show any brilliance with armour?
He loved those that didn't go through Trauma
I crewed M60a1 tanks in 80 to 82. We studied his tactics.
Most overrated and underachieving well known general of WW2. He never fought the best the Germans had and was never in the thick of the big battles of the western front.
He legend rests largely with an inaccurate Hollywood movie.
I’d say he was loved and hated to a point. It does take a strong backbone to lead an army, but eventually one’s ego can get the best of them and they either learn from their actions or not, just my opinion.
Patton is complicated. There are two things that ought be pointed out, he didn’t sound like George C. Scott portrayed him in the movie, and so far as MHV has said, there’s no German documentation to support a great fear or respect for Patton. Patton thought a lot about leadership as a concept, and much of those ideas survive today even if they’re not attributed to Patton. His niece? might have said it best at his funeral, “it’s better for uncle Georgie like this, he wouldn’t understand peace.” Or words to that effect. He belongs in a glass case that says “in case of war, break glass.”
And nor did Montgomery have an issue with Patton. He never said or wrote a bad word about Patton and even hoped his soldier slapping escapades could be kept quiet.
Montgomery even said to Eisenhower in the Ardennes that he should get Patton to advance to Bastogne, not knowing that Eisenhower had already thought of that.
Patton had a problem with Montgomery, but the reverse was not true.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Ike never thought of anything, the man was a good politician, but an absolute shitty general with zero tactical or strategic competence. It was Patton who thought up how to relieve Bastogne, not Ike, he told Ike he could do it and Ike laughed at him thinking it impossible to move an entire Army group 180 degrees, march over 100 miles, and engage the enemy in time. Patton not only did it, he also won and drove the German troops back across the Rhine. Ike should have been court marshalled IMO, first of reliving Patton in Sicily, and then for ignoring him in the Falaise Gap.
@@tedwojtasik8781
Yes Eisenhower was an excellent man manager and politician and should have just remained as Supreme Commander, and not also taken over command of ground strategy from Montgomery in September 1944. Under Montgomery in command of all ground forces the allies did extremely well, moving 600km from the Normandy beaches to Belgium etc in just 3 months, which was ahead of schedule. When Eisenhower took over in September, the allied advance then stalled and barely moved 100km for the next 6 months, due to Eisenhower insisting of a dispersed broad from. Instead of smashing down the door into Germany in one concentrated punch, he instead decided to knock on the door everywhere, the result of which the Germans were able to hold at bay.
Montgomery argued for a concentrated northern thrust with 40 divisions in 4 armies, which would have included Patton's 3rd Army as well as US 1st Army, British 2nd Army and Canadian 1st Army. Eisenhower insisted on the broad front instead, which was far more difficult to supply and maintain and it weakened the attacking power.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Monty accused Patton of stealing supplies in Northern France and intruded on Patton's zone of command in Sicily.
According to Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Patton. He lived for the action of the battlefield. He was a tactical genius who understood war strategy on a deep level. But during peace time he suffered from depression. It was if he was born to be a warrior without fear. Even Adolf Hitler himself and his third reich would not dare send their forces anywhere near Patton and his men. Hitler's #1 priority was to avoid Patton and his army at all cost.
He understood the value of the stage but if you really want to know Patton, read Patton’s Leadership Principles and it’s a eye opener to his learning disabilities and how he overcame them as well as his common sense approach to leadership
I think his ego got in his way. The idea of treating all soldiers, even the lowest enlisted, with respect was and still important to the US military. The fact is that his temper and disregard for authority hurt him
What would your example of ego being what hurt Patton be though? I don't think it is ego that caused him to slap those 2 men. It was his temper and respect he had for soldiers that caused that to happen. Patton was in tears when he slapped those men because he was so upset that what he thought were men being cowards to avoid fighting made up their condition and was a slap to the other men he just spent hours talking to who all had physical injuries. We have to remember this was the 40's when Patton slapped them and Patton himself was born back in 1906. He and many other people (I'd say the majority of people) had the same opinion as Patton did back then when he slapped those men. They didn't know about PTST back then and even shell shock was a condition viewed much differently. Those men he slapped didn't encounter a situation where it was believed someone would get shell shock. It was thought shell shock would happen to men hit for long periods of time by artillery.
And partially in Patton's defense of the slapping incidents, 1 of those men he slapped could have been faking his condition to avoid combat. One of the men he slapped had not seen any combat and didn't see anyone get killed or injured in front of him. That man was a truck driver (there is nothing wrong with that, logistics troops are very valuable and have a job as important as most other jobs) and was taking a break when another unit was moving to the front line and a officer told that solider Patton would later slap to come with them to the front since he was not doing anything at that moment (people have said that solider was making jokes to the officers troops as they went to the front which is another reason the officer told the solider to come with them to the front) and that solider refused to go to the front saying that wasn't his job, I am a supply trooper and things like that. So that officer sent the solider to the field hospital since he was refusing to fight. The other man Patton slapped had seen combat and men being injured/killed.
Patton was known for treating his soldiers with respect apart from the slapping incidents. Those slapping incidents actually made Patton even more liked by his troops later in the war when in command of the 3rd Army. Because as I was saying back then it would have been thought those soldiers were faking their conditions to avoid fighting at the front. It is often mis-understood by many historians that enlisted troops liked Bradly but not Patton when it was actually the other way around. Patton's troops loved him because he spent so much time at the front and talking to all of his men in normal conversations no matter what their rank was and he would ask them things they thought was working and not working. While Bradly who was a very good general and a master at logistics very rarely would go to the front to talk to the enlisted men (he was of course an Army group commander which resulted in Bradly not going to the front often just like the other Army Group commanders Montgomery, Devers and Clark).
Lastly that Army that Patton led at the end of WW2, the US 3rd Army was by far the largest single Army of WW2 out of all countries making up 18 US divisions (much larger then Soviet or German divisions) Patton's one single army was larger then the Army Group that Montgomery was leading (Montgomery had 2 armies under his command at the end of WW2, 1 British and the one Canadian army). Patton was given the command of the largest army of WW2 not only because he had proven himself an excellent field commander but also because he was obeying his commands despite your comment about him not obeying authority (no fault on you for thinking that as it is a common opinion). But Patton did in reality actually follow his superiors commands. For example in Sicily Patton didn't just go off on his own making his out flanking move. Patton asked the Army Group commander in charge of Sicily for the Allies, Harold Alexander and Alexander agreed with the idea and gave his go ahead on it after Patton asked. Patton was an army commander through and through and was brought up in military life and knew the importance of obeying direct commands given to junior officers. Patton knew what he was allowed to do on his own as an Army commander and what kinds of things he would need to ask for permission to do with his superiors .
@@PhillyPhanVinny Patton commanded 200,000 men Monty commanded 1 million.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That is only if you are counting the air-force and logistics troops Montgomery also had under his command due to being an Army Group commander (a logistics heavy job). At the end of WW2 both Montgomery and Patton had the same number of divisions under their command (18). That is what I was comparing. Patton didn't have command of an air-force or the logistics forces supplying him apart from the in-division logistics which Montgomery's divisions had also. Omar Bradley, the command of the US 12th army group and had command of the logistics forces in his area of the front line like Montgomery did north of him in the 21st army group. Omar Bradley though didn't have command of the US air-forces in Western Europe like Montgomery did over the British and Canadian air-forces. The US air-force in Western Europe answered to Eisenhower. So even though Bradley had command of 4 US armies (47 divisions) compared to Montgomery's 2 armies (18 divisions), Bradley still only had command of 200,000 more men then Montgomery because the air-force under Montgomery's official command was massive (as was the US air-force in Western Europe).
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- And did a great job too, but he made mistakes- bad ones- as well. We all do.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Monty and Patton had egos bigger then the whole German general staff.
Patton was controversial and also kind of overrated, but he was also a master of his craft when it came to exploitation and maneuver warfare, as he demonstrated at Sicily, during the Normandy breakout, in the Ardennes, and after bouncing the Rhine. His weakness was static warfare, which may be indicative of the Cavalry vs Infantry schools.
@RedAUG I think their were other US generals who were just as capable like Collins, Ridgeway and Devers.
Courtney Hodges who was 1st Army Command I believe was either Artillery or Coastal Artillery, so different combat styles. Hodges doesn't get discussed but he was responsible for the Hurtgen Forrest operation. Which was a meat grinder campaign that ended up meaning nothing. Patton gets heat for Metz, and Helidelburg Raid as well.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Collins and Ridgeway were Corps Commanders, and Devers was an Army Group Commander, both positions above and below Patton. So, their operational positions are indirect comparisons. Also, Ridgeway commanded an Airborne Corps with different combat styles and missions altogether. The people to compare Patton with are General Hodges, General Simpson, and General Patch, the commanders of the US 1st, 9th, and 7th Armies in Europe.
@@ThumperE23 Other underrated corps commanders are Richard O Connor, Pip Roberts and Miles Dempsey.
He had a limited but important skill: operational pursuit and he may have done it better than anyone else ever has.
Oh, FFS. STOP THESE STUPID MYTHS! Patton was NOT a great General. He never once excelled at attacking a strongly held position. He stalled in Tunisia. He didn't communicate with the navy and got hundreds of airborne troops killed by friendly fire in Sicily. Then, by running off to Palermo against orders, he managed to leave Monty's flank open, and instead of cutting the enemy troops on the western side of the island off, he drove them before him back to Messina, where 100,000 enemy troops and equipment got off to the mainland. It's probably this, more than the other mistakes, that led to him being sidelined for Overlord. And that myth takes the cake! "Patton was soooo good, he was more valuable as a decoy, than actually leading an Army for the MOST IMPORTANT OPERATION OF THE WESTERN EUROPEAN THEATRE!" I mean, really?!? No. He stalled again when he hit opposition in Lorraine, where, once again, his poor grasp of logistics slowed him down, and his inability to concentrate force where needed got him stopped time and again. He stalled at Metz for THREE MONTHS, and for all I know, he'd still be there if he hadn't got ordered to relieve Bastogne! Then there's the Hammelburg raid. Easily the most overrated, pompous, self serving, self promoting General of WW2, and possibly of all time. A terrible and unimaginative leader in attack, who just yelled at his subordinates to do something till they put ill prepared, poorly planned piecemeal attacks out to shit him up. He cost thousands of US lives for little gain.
About 20 years ago, I was on a cruise and assigned to a dinner table with an older couple. The man, a great guy, was a Jewish man from NY City, and had been in WW II and was at Kasserine Pass, where he said the "Germans kicked the hell out of us." He said they "lured us up into these canyons and tore us to pieces. If it was a football game we lost 50 - 0." Being a student of WW II, I asked if his commander was Lloyd Friedendall. He was stunned and asked how I knew that. He claimed that Friedendall was a friend of George Marshall and lived in an underground bunker 50 miles away from the front lines and was a poor general. Friedendall was fired after Kasserine and Patton was his replacement. He told me that there was an instant culture change. He said they were up at 5:00 a.m. and trained every day like maniacs well past dark. He said Patton went out of his way to meet every soldier, drilled with his men, would show up out of the blue and sleep in fox holes with privates and promised his men, that he would be on the front lines with them at all times. He said they regained their confidence and then fought very well and Patton was relentless in their training and they came to adore him. He was involved in the invasion of Sicily and then fought in Italy where he was wounded. He said that being Jewish he deeply feared being captured by the Germans. He told me Patton was a rare leader of great charisma and that it's hard to explain the incredible effect he had on a demoralized army.
Pretty much my uncles view of Patton. My maternal family, biased by media coverage of Patton were quite shocked by my Uncles adoration of Patton!
Some of this is BS.
1) Harry Yeide went into the German archives and discovered that the majority of the German Generals had never even heard of Patton.
2) Patton was not regarded as a great leader. However, he was recognized for being very strong in pursuit/rolling fights. Thomas E Rick's has some good info on this
You forgot the part where he sent a single battalion behind German lines in April 1945 to free his son in law from a pow camp and the whole thing was a disaster. Most of the men were killed or captured and they didn’t even save his son in law. He should never have used his command to achieve personal goals that ran contrary to the real war strategy.
His entire WW2 career was using his command to achieve personal goals that ran contrary to strategy. Sicily - runs off to Palermo for the photo op, leaving Monty's flank open, and allowing 100,000 enemy troops and equipment to escape to the mainland. Metz, knows that it should be bypassed, but also knows that no-one since Attila has taken it, so wastes three months and thousands of lives for it. Glory hungry, self promoting rich arsehole.
That's often a forgotten thing about him but that was hardly his only bad moment. Think about Metz and in Africa too he was checked.
@@Emil.Fontanot He was temporarily checked but he did overcome both. You can argue he was a tactical and strategic nitwit at both by the use of too direct concentrated force under those circumstance. I agree, but both were a result of Patton's overconfidence after having won several battles prior which was, IMO his biggest and most problematic attribute. Patton believed, especially in Metz, that the Germans would fall back after a short skirmish and abandon the town(s). If Patton had not been so arrogant in those instances to the point of ignoring his own #1 rule (never ignore your intel). Regarding his only real loss of the war, his attempted liberation of a POW camp, that was another WTF and completely out of character blunder even a rookie likely would not have made. Honestly, that one is a real head scratcher. Why he sent such an outrageously small detachment to liberate a well fortified and equipped POW camp defies understanding.
@@tedwojtasik8781 his overconfidence was based on nothing. The only battles he fought before the campaigns in France was the Battle of El Guettar(an indecisive battle at best) and the Sicilian campaign, in which he barely met any opposition and still failed to stop the Axis evacuation.
@@Emil.Fontanot When it comes down to it, Pattons best feat of the war was the turning of the Third army 100 miles to Bastogne.
I think Patton is greatly overrated, mostly due to the inaccurate, but very entertaining, Hollywood film about him starring the great George. C. Scott. In reality Patton first comes to notice in 1942 in North Afica where he takes over from Fredandall after the debacle of the Kaserine pass. However, even with Patton in command he still didn't achieve any of his objectives. Later in Sicily he is charged with protecting Montgomery's left flank while Montys 8th Army pushes the Nazis up the west coast. Yet right at the time Monty sees an opportunity for Patton to advance behind the retreating Germans and cut them off, Patton decides to go in the completely opposite direction while wilfully ignoring all Montys messages. He then captures Palermo on the opposite side of the island far away from the action.
Palermo is of no strategic importance and even US General Bradley admitted it was a just waste of time taking it.
After allowing the Germans to escape Patton then goes up the only good road on the island to Massina the German embarkation point, but by the time he gets there they have all gone. Though Patton claims he won the 'Race to Messina', despite there being no race. In fact Monty had asked him to take the faster less defended road to Messina in order to get there quicker. While in Sicily Patton had also ordered his soldiers not to take any prisoners and many POW were shot in cold blood. He also attacked two of his own soldiers in a Hostpital who he claimed were cowards. Patton had to be restrained by doctors and other medical staff. After the successful conquest of Sicily, Montgomery was awarded the highest award Eisenhower could bestow on a foreign soldier. While Patton was releaved of his command and put on humdrum duties away from the conflict.
yeah if patton was so great that incident wouldve been hushed up. There are other American generals more deserving of the limelight.
>"Yet right at the time Monty sees an opportunity for Patton to advance behind the retreating Germans and cut them off, Patton decides to go in the completely opposite direction while wilfully ignoring all Montys messages"
Not true. Not true at all. Montgomery's attack on the south side of the island had stalled, and his sudden intrusion into 7th Army lines had bought enough time for the Germans to retreat and form a new defensive perimeter around Mt Etna. Meanwhile, Patton's liberation of Palermo was co-signed by Alexander, Montgomery's superior. It was necessary to bring supplies in to support the advance along the northern coast considering that the attack in the south was going poorly. Moreover, there were no major longitudinal roads (that the 7th Army wasn't already using) that would have permitted cutting off retreating Axis forces. Finally, I'm not sure what mysterious "undefended road to Messina" you're referring to, but you just need to look at a map to see that there were only three major roads extending east. One was in the 8th Army's area of operation, and the other two were in fact being used by the 7th Army (one along the north coast and one going through Troina).
Blaming Patton for any kind of failure on Sicily is Anglo cope. It was Montgomery's plan and his plan called for the 8th Army to reach Messina first. Yet it only stopped being "a race" after the 8th Army couldn't make the progress Montgomery hoped for, then suddenly it was the 7th Army's responsibility to take Messina and prevent the Germans from evacuating, and failure to do so would of course be pinned on the 7th Army and Patton. Awfully convenient for Montgomery and his stans...
@@redaug4212
As US General Oma Bradley said at the time, taking Palermo was a waste of time as it was of no strategic importance what so ever. Also Patton only got permission from General Alexander retrospectively, ie some time AFTER he had already issued his orders to take it. Therefore, Alexander only gave permission later to keep the peace, he was a very diplomatic commander operating in very volatile and challenging circumstances.
Because, Patton was just out for glory, he wasn't concerned with winner the battle for Sicily swiftly and efficiently by a coordinated effort. He concidered he was in competition with Montgomery not an integral part of the same Army with the same objectives. That's no way to fight a war, and no way to treat an Ally And along with his other shortcomings that I detailed in my first comment, are some of the reasons I consider he is grossly overrated, though there is much more criticism of him I could offer.
@@johnbrereton5229 Omar Bradley isn't the sole authoritative opinion on the subject. It's well known that Bradley was not on good terms with Patton, and was critical of nearly every action taken as part of Patton's command.
>"Patton only got permission from General Alexander retrospectively, ie some time AFTER he had already issued his orders to take it."
Wrong. Alexander issued orders for Patton's "recon in force" to cut the northern coast and clear the western end of the island on July 18. Only *two days* after Patton's forces liberated Agrigento and Porto Empedocle; as part of Alexander's initial orders to extend west. For all Alexander knew, Patton's forces were still trying to capture these initial objectives in that two day period. Clearly Patton's initiative EXCEEDED Alexander's expectations and called for a revised plan since the 8th Army's advance was not going as well as expected. Ask yourself this, if Alexander disagreed with Patton's plans reorient the initiative to the north, then why would he order Patton to clear the western end of the island several days before Palermo was close to being taken? Why wouldn't he just order Patton to keep a small force in place on the northern road to keep Italian units from retreating east?
It doesn't matter how Patton viewed the battle or his collogues. Semantics compared to the bigger picture. Montgomery's plan to have the 8th Army be the sword and the 7th Army the shield failed. Then, the directive to bully the 7th Army out of its area of operations (where it was making progress) so Montgomery could have more wiggle room to salvage his plan also failed. It was opening up the northern route that succeeded in preventing the battle from continuing any longer than it did. Obviously this is not a slight against British and Canadians troops. They certainly had some of the most difficult objectives, but GB can't always be this perfect source of strategic brilliance that some people seem to believe it is. Sometimes they make mistakes, like any other nation.
@@redaug4212
Patton was Bradley superior in Sicily and yes, he often criticized Patton, but why ? Because Patton deserved much criticism. After Sicily, Patton was relived of his command by Eisenhower his friend, and wasn't allowed back untill Normandy. However, Bradley was now given command and Patton was now under him, what does that tell you ?
In a one word answer: "Yes."
If Patton were around today, his nickname might be "It's Complicated" rather than "Blood and Guts."
He would never have made general in today's Army. In fact he was almost at mandatory retirement age as a Col. when the War intervened.
He was definitely brave and smart but a hard ass nonetheless, which you have to be in war. In WW1 he crawled through No Mans Land and mapped the best route for his tanks to take before an assault, he’s a major badass who you have to respect
Source ??
Murdered one of his own men in WWI. What a great guy!🤡
Only in his own mind
@@hughzapretti-boyden9187 You just going to keep commenting that everywhere? Maybe expand on that a little bit more
Jesus wept he was only in WW1 AT THE VERY END
Just as arrogant as Monty - not quite as skilled and a lot more touchy
Jesus I don’t even know many Brits who would say that. Ike didn’t care for either very much. Patton was more effective in the field though.
@@matthewgabbard6415 Hard to measure such effectiveness in an objective way. Esp as Patton was two ranks below Monty and so had different responsibilities. I'm not sure that Patton could have pulled off the largest, most complex invasion in history like Monty did.
@@matthewgabbard6415 I prefer Truscott.
In my opinion Patton was very tactical but wouldn’t stop till his plans fell through even if throwing men and tanks at the enemy meant reaching his goals
When did he ever do anything like that?
@@paulbabcock2428 The Siege of Metz in the fall of 1944; Patton was dead-set on taking the city and fortress, but if he’d gone around it, would’ve been faster and more efficient all-round
I wouldn't agree with that characterization of Patton. Patton didn't suffer any defats of significance. By the end of WW2 Patton's 3rd army was the largest Army of WW2 out of any country making up 18 US divisions (US divisions were among the largest of the war with only British divisions in general being larger. US divisions were also the closest to their paper strength of any nation in WW2) and with the largest army of WW2 he also had by far the highest kill to death ratio (including casualties so injured and captured troops that the 3rd army suffered and injured and captured of the Germans). So that is why I wouldn't agree with your characterization of Patton in your comment. Since Patton was not just throwing men to their deaths. Even when he was attacking hard to take positions he was doing so while other units under his command were advancing on the flanks allowing Patton to surround the Axis troops over and over again.
@@bruenor316 As I was saying in my reply to the OP Patton was not ever just sending men to their deaths with a front on attack for no reason. He was still sending his divisions forward and around Axis positions repeatedly surrounding Axis units over and over again all through his time in WW2. Patton's' 3rd army had by far the highest ratio of killed, injured and captured caused compared to his own men's casualties. All Army commanders of WW2 who had command for any significant period of time and wasn't just on the defense the whole time had to launch attacks against well defended positions like Metz. It was just part of the war. I'll make an example using Montgomery (since that is who Patton has been compared to since even before WW2 ended) and Montgomery launched attacks against dug-in Axis positions as well.
The largest mistake the Western Allies had against the Germans in WW2 was not Market Garden but the failure to take the Scheldt Estuary of Antwerp (the failure to take it is what caused Market Garden to happen). Despite Montgomery being told countless times by so many officers in both the US and British militaries of it's importance including by Eisenhower and Bertram Ramsey (the man most important for the Western allied plans of what to do during D-Day and after) Montgomery still ignored those warnings that he needed to take the Estuary (he blamed not taking it on the Canadians). Since the Estuary was not taken the Allies could still not use the vital port of Antwerp. Without that port the allies could only bring in enough supplies for 1 army to make an offensive which is what led to Market Garden happening. After Market Garden failed though Montgomery was ordered to complete his original orders to take the Scheldt Estuary. But because Montgomery didn't take those islands when he was supposed to the Germans had gotten troops onto them and dug in on them. This forced Montgomery to make some of the most heroic and deadly single day attacks of WW2. Montgomery led those attacks with the Canadians with the British taking some of the smaller islands and those attacks were forced front on attacks via beach landings right into German positions. Those islands were of such importance because without them Allied ships could not go in to dock at Antwerp. The allies would take them after suffering major casualties. The taking of those islands allowed Eisenhower to supply all 3 of his Army Groups in France with enough supplies to attack with all 3. This then led to the Allies being able to break into Germany in multiple directions. Prior to getting access to use Antwerp as a harbor the only harbors the allies could use were the D-Day landing beaches and Cherbourg . Antwerp was the largest and most important port of Western Europe (probably all of Europe and maybe even the world) and the Germans could not block it off like they did with other harbors because of how deep the water in the harbor was. But if the Germans controlled those islands it would prevent any ship from getting to Antwerp (looking at a map of the Estuary makes this much easier to understand).
And all the other Western allied army group and army commanders had to make attacks on positions the Axis were dug into as well. Europe is not like the Pacific where you can avoid many battles. The allies could do that with ports because even before D-Day the plan was to just use the D-Day beaches and Cherbourg until they could take Antwerp and then with Antwerp they could bring all their supplies for all 8 Armies (5 American, 1 British, 1 Canadian and 1 French army) in Western Europe under Eisenhower's command. That is how big and important Antwerp was. But for inland positions the Allies had to often attack Axis forces dug into cities. The Soviets had been doing it from Stalingrad onwards. So Patton attacking Axis forces in a city should just be thought of as normal. And at the same time Patton was attacking Metz he was still advancing his massive 3rd Army all over Europe in the territory of his front. But Metz was a vital transportation position had had to eventually be taken to allow enough trains to run through Patton's positions to keep up the supply of his Army.
@@PhillyPhanVinny Remarkable comment. Simply impressive analysis. I'd be surprised to think it came from an amateur historian. I had a sneaking suspicion that the reason Market Garden happened was a prior strategic failure rather than Montgomery's possible (not yet confirmed) autism and his stubbornness in the face of the recommendations.
Most great field commanders run afoul of their superiors from time to time for following their instincts over orders. If they are successful it can usually be forgiven. They have an acute sense of the enemy's moral and abilities to punish overly aggressive actions and will strike them hard at the correct moment. I'm sure this behavior drives the high command crazy, but you can't force exceptional people to be mediocre any more than you can force mediocre people to be exceptional.
He was fine in operations requiring drive, energy and aggression, but failed badly when a tactical approach was required. It's interesting you fail to mention the battle of Metz, and Patton's attempt to capture Fort Driant. He charged the objective like a bull at a gate and got badly mauled, despite Omar Bradley's advice to simply bypass the fort and leave it to wither on the vine.
Or Ike and Bradley could have just supplied Patton's command enough of the fuel it needed earlier so it can take Metz with much less resistance than they did?
@@markgarrett3647 Or listened to Bradleys advice on bypassing Metz instead?
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- You forgot how the fuel situations still tenuous for the 3rd Army even after they received enough of their fuel to get moving again and how Metz being secured would really ease that situation.
Besides that Patton's orders were to after all consolidate the Allied hold on Moselle river and Lorraine valley.
"Fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity", said Patton. Then spent three months proving himself correct at Metz!
@@markgarrett3647 It’s myth that any petrol was taken from Patton for Montgomery. Patton was already at a standstill before planning for Market Garden even started.
Patton finally began receiving adequate supplies on September 4, (two weeks before MG) after a week’s excruciating pause”
- Harry Yeide
Market Garden only had priority in extra supply transport laid on. It didn’t take away any actual supplies from any US army. Nor did Market Garden stop all operations on the western front. Patton’s 3rd Army was still trying to take Metz and US 1st Army began its Hurtgen Forest campaign on September 19th, 2 days after Market Garden began.
Did you know that the twin pronged US 1st Army attack in the Hurtgen Forest and Aachen in October 1944 used FOUR TIMES as many men and supplies as the ground element of Market Garden, which wasn’t even a full 2nd British Army attack?
“ It was commonly believed at Third Army H.Q. that Montgomery's advance through Belgium was largely maintained by supplies diverted from Patton. (See Butcher, op. cit., p. 667.) This is not true. The amount delivered by the ' air-lift ' was sufficient to maintain only one division. No road transport was diverted to aid Montgomery until September 16th. On the other hand, three British transport companies, lent to the Americans on August 6th " for eight days," were not returned until September 4th.' “
- CHESTER WILMOT
THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE. 1954
P 589
He saved lives with his standing order to always attack. Keep the enemy off balance so they don't have a chance to dig in to form a defense. Unquestionably the best Allied field commander of WWII. I had 2 great uncles who served in the 3rd army and they had nothing but good things to say about their commanding General.
He was capable but certainly not your best, otherwise Marshall and the Chiefs would have promoted him above Bradley And we had Lt Generals that were as good if not better Morshead , Lumsden, Horrocks, Dempsey , Andersen [who by the way was the man that got Patton out of a hot spot El Guerre ]. Patton had great propaganda that kept him n the limelight back home He had great Charisma
@@jacktattis After the slapping incident and several gaffe's in the press, Patton was never going to reach the upper echelon as those US Generals with political skills. But Ike and Marshall sure respected his skills as a pure field commander when they could have easily sent him home several times. He brought victories to the US at a time when they were badly needed in North Africa and Sicily. Performed with distinction in the ETO. And will be remembered in history for all time. Not too shabby for an old horse soldier.
@@jameslonano5659 North Africa ?????? He did not take over until the end of the debacle that was at the Kasserine Pass. The German Army was in full retreat. Andersen aided Patton at El Guerre and the result was a draw not a defeat.
@@jameslonano5659 .North Africa Patton's performance was poor hence his secondary role in Sicily. Sicily he was sacked
@@garythomas3219 I think that was the POW executions that caused it.
See the bonus army. Patton was happy to charge at them with bayonets and tear gas. He was over rated
That has nothing to do with his leadership in combat during WWII
I don't get people who castigate Patton and MacArthur for the whole bonus army thing. What were they supposed to do? Disobey direct orders from the President and risk being discharged or permanently demoted because they could not foresee how wildly unpopular their actions would be in 90 years?
@@redaug4212 Also, they both should have been bipoc transsexual Marxists...or something.
@@redaug4212 actually president Hoover didn't order it, and he was very angry at MacArthur, wanting to sack him, but was told but other generals and advisors said that with the great depression going on, it would make people possibly lose to much confidence in that the president, since he couldn't control his own generals. Mac's sacking in the korean war was a long time coming.
Now reportedly the event strained Pattons and MacArthur's relationship but I havent verified this.
@@swampdonkey1567 Hoover ordered the first attack on the encampment, but yes, MacArthur continued to attack despite Hoover's order to stop. Now whether this was this done deliberately or due to miscommunication is not clear. Some of MacArthur's subordinates at the time (including Eisenhower) stated that the halt orders were never received. What's interesting is that the man responsible for relaying these orders to MacArthur, General George Moseley, was an ardent national socialist who believed the bonus army to be a communist coup.
With a little speculation, I think it's quite possible that Moseley intentionally withheld the orders so MacArthur would obliviously destroy the rest of the bonus army. Which isn't to absolve MacArthur of any wrongdoing of course. I'm sure he could have been less zealous in his tactical approach.
overblown, clearly didn't care for his men, how many soldiers were killed because he was chasing glory
He also understood that the next enemy would be the Soviets so despite fighting so hard against the Germans he knew who was the real enemy.
The Nazis were the real enemy, the Soviets being next on the list doesn’t change that fact.
The whole War started because Hitler violated Poland's sovereignty and yet the tragic irony about the end of the war is that we allowed Stalin to keep what we told Hitler he could not have.
So the Nazis weren’t the real enemy?
Our next enemy is the Chinese.
@@NostalgicGamerRickOShayIt leads to questions about what other factors led to the war and its continuation.
Yes, Patton was a racist. No dispute. What is surprising is that he was considerably less racist than many of the other American generals at the time. People comment on his racism today because many of the black soldiers who served under him in WW2 believed that he wasn't racist and that he treated them like equals. He didn't view them as equals but he gave them credit for a lot more good qualities (like being good soldiers and very courageous, etc.) than most of the other (far more racist) generals at that time.
He's a bit like one of those Rockstar's who died before they made any truly awful albums. It would be interesting to see if his reputation would be the same today had he stuck around and pissed everyone off for another 20-30 odd years after the war.
Great men aren't always good people.
I'd say he was a man of his time.... and no man exists without faults! R I P General.
5:58 Guess being struck by sickness is a no-no to General Patton
He believed battle fatigue or PTSD was a sign of cowardice
He violently assaulted two private soldiers who were patients in military hospitals, screaming obscenities. What a brave general!
@@renard801 He was a traditional General that way. Way back when corporal punishment was an acceptable method of disciplining troops who conducted themselves badly.
@@markgarrett3647 The first man had malaria and a dangerously high temperature of 102. The other had shell-shock, a medically recognised condition since WWI. How is that "conducting themselves badly"?
Corporal punishment wasn't acceptable in 1943. Neither was a general literally kicking a sick soldier out of a hospital, or pulling his gun on another and threatening to shoot him, on both occasions screaming obscenities.
Acceptable? Eisenhower and Marshall were incensed. Ike wrote Patton that he deserved to be broken, and would have been in peacetime. Even the respected veteran Pershing condemned Patton's conduct.
Officers do not maintain discipline or command respect by assaulting private soldiers.
@@billbrandley5839 More to the point, Patton said, "Shell shock is an invention of the Jews." Another indication of the man's character!
Arrogant people are often loved especially in the States so the title isn't as piffy as you'd think
Patton: confident!
Patton was a bumbler. He roared around the countryside wasting gas and rounding up isolated garrisons of German supply troops. Meanwhile, Montgomery stood toe to toe with Germany's best units and gave them hell.
It's a Hollywood Myth that the Germans feared Patton
Germans - Patton who?
Plus, Hollywood gave so much of Ridgway's glory to Patton to pump his image up. His role at the Battle of the Bulge and even in Italy were totally ignored by that film so that Patton could be transformed into an all-conquering folk hero. Hollywood does a better job of rewriting history than anyone but the CCP and the former Soviet Union. I say that as an American.
Kevin Hymel proved that it's true at least before and during the Battle of the Bulge.
@@markgarrett3647 Harry Yeide paints a different picture
@@hannibalbarca9643 Yeide is out of date.
Fought against weakened Germam army. Suffered delusions of grandeur. Was j envious of the Soviet army's acheivements.
My neighbor marched under Patton he didn't like him at all. Thought he was a glory chaser that didn't care about his own mens welfare. Said all of the men in his unit hated him and they'd take pop shots at his jeep. Patton always thought it was the Germans. Said he'll never forget how cold his feet would get when they get done fighting one battle and he rushed to another front. 100 mi away and they force March guys would lose their feet.
Patton was right about the Soviets. Too bad the Allies failed to heed his warnings. Patton had the right ideas to fight a war. A leader is not supposed to be loved by their troops, they are supposed to push their men beyond what they can do. I think Bradley hold Patton back too many times. Glad that the Germans feared him more.
The thing that really annoys me about these Patton myths, is rubbish like "the strategically important fortress of Metz". It wasn't important. He could have gone round and cut it off! As a so called "great cavalry commander", as he admitted later, he SHOULD have gone around. But no, he wanted to be the first guy since Attila to take it, and thousands die, his advance stalls, and the Germans regroup for the Bulge. And Georgie Boy never goes that way into Germany, anyway! Quit the mythology. Patton was barely competent.
you would have to say both. he was great at fast moving armored forces, but not so well at slower, set piece type battles. the 7th army did not really get a chance to learn that his fast moving tactics often saved more lives than they cost. 3rd army had a chance to learn this and they respected and even loved him, because he gave them a better chance of going home than many other generals.
3rd had higher casualties than any other
@Ken, 3d Army also killed, captured more Axis solders, took more territory, Patton's tactics shortened the war and saved thousands of lives. Like him or not he was the best Army Gen. of WWII
@Ken, 3d Army also killed, captured more Axis solders, took more territory, Patton's tactics shortened the war and saved thousands of lives. Like him or not he was the best Army Gen. of WWII
@@rogerbean6963 how did Patton headbutting the walls of Metz help to shorten the war? How did running off to Palermo and allowing 100,000 enemy troops escape from Sicily help to shorten the war? How did Task Force Baum help to shorten the war? How did failing to take objectives in Tunisia shorten the war? How did shooting donkeys shorten the war? How did covering up a massacre shorten the war?
@@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85 Maybe Ike should have given more of the gas to the 3rd. than to 1st. that was charged with supporting Monty's Market Garden pipe dream so the 3rd. can take Metz earlier and with little to no resistance?
I have spoken with Vets who served with him, it was either love or hate, did not matter what rank they were
It seems like the ones that loved him were never directly under him. The more I Iearn about him, the more I think he is severely overrated, and I think a lot of the key victories he had as he climbed the ranks were "easy" wins.
I think he was the man you wanted to win you a fight… it’s not the size dog 🐕 in a fight but the size of the fight in a dog… but George s Patton was no politician and his ego meant he even fought his friends and allies. Bradley and Eisenhower tried to help but he struggled to help himself
The bots are getting to the point I want quit youtube
He was reckless driving long distance not thinking about his flanks the supply lines and the infantry role . Blitzkrieg warfare,looks good in movies.
He was a glory hound, like most of the other generals. He would throw his men into any fight. Regardless of enemy numbers. Eisenhower chewed him out several times for his antics.his men said his guts, our blood.........
Overblown in the sense most German commanders never heard of him. Also overblown in the sense that other than in Sicily Patton and Monty were never equals.
They were very aware of him during the Ardennes offensive according to Hymel.
@@markgarrett3647 … German Generals fighting him knew about Patton. Knowing was required for them and their intel officers. It would have been unprofessional and not in the Prussian military tradition to be otherwise. But only 1/4 of the German Army was in NW Europe. The bulk of German combat Generals were commanding on the Eastern Front. Patton wasn’t on their professional radar
We fought the wrong people
My grandfather despised Patton, even more after he assaulted those soldiers in the hospital suffering from shell shock (PTSD as we now call it). He considered Patton a big bully who should never had the chance to lead.
I briefly worked for his son who was deputy commander of 7th Corps in West Germany. He was as I imagined his father was. I got a long with him well.
This video correctly notes that a series of massacres committed by GIs in Sicily are among the most controversial of Patton's career and yet among the least known to the pubic probably because they were overshadowed by the so-called slapping incidents featured in the movie Patton. The massacres at the Biscari airfield July 1943 were committed by Capt Compton and NCO West. Both were court marshalled. Compton was acquitted and returned to duty but was KIA shortly thereafter. West was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, but Ike commuted his sentence to time served after a year and West was returned to duty and survived the war. At trial both claimed that Patton's pre Husky pep talks to the 45th Division had a "take no prisoners" theme and inspired them to kill dozens of disarmed and non-resisting Italian POWs with a couple of Germans. Was Patton responsible? There is no doubt Patton tried to cover up the massacres even advising that weapons be planted on the dead POWs corpses (consciousness of guilt) and then only court marshalled West and Compton at Omar Bradley's insistence. I have looked at the case a lot and I have yet to make up my mind on Patton's responsibility if any. Unfortunately, there is no recording of his pre-invasion pep talks to the 45th but there is no doubt, like in the movie Patton, his pep talks could cross the line and imply no mercy to the enemy even when surrendering. On the other hand Patton was correct to urge intense suspicion of surrendering Germans. Germans were known to stage phony surrenders that were really ambushes and the Hermann Goering Division (stationed in Sicily) was notorious for that. So he could be seen as justified in telling his troops to distrust surrendering enemy. But those massacred were 90% Italian not German and no question they had been disarmed and non-resisting.
6 mins, 50 seconds. Total rubbish. The Germans had no opinion on Patton until the end of the war.
Patton's major success was his drive through Britany, however, it was successful because there were virtually no Germans there. Especially, there were no tanks, they were all facing the British and Canadian forces advancing from Caen. His thrusting cavalry stile soon came to a stop at Metz where the Germans stood to fight.
He was not particularly liked by his men, who quoted 'His guts, our blood' Montgomery did not 'despise' Patton, he probably never even gave him much consideration.
And Patton's 3rd Army didn't go into combat until August 1st. After the hard work in Normandy had already been done during the previous 2 months.
That's the point. His armour-heavy command was meant to hit the enemy troops where they're least prepared and densely concentrated and win with far less casualties in comparison to a WWI-type set piece battle favoured by a certain General who was called by the historian Jonathan Parshall a wretched Human being.
He was a brilliant leader but a poor follower and ultimately he became a bigger liability than an asset to his superiors. If he survived the war I would be very curious to see how his career finished, I suspect it would have ended on a down note similarly to MacArthur.
Despise his controversies, I greatly admire his ability to lead men
How Ike treated Patton was a disgrace and later a foreshadowing of how he would throw Nixon under the bus as a politician after the fake reporting of his supposedly secret campaign funds surfaced.
And murder one of his own in WWI.🤡
my uncle served as an MP in Patton's army & said they really liked and respected him; never knew when he would turn the corner on you, lol.
I think he's way overrated , its easy to be daring against an already defeated enemy . And he was way too lose with the rules himself while being strict on everyone else
>"its easy to be daring against an already defeated enemy"
So nothing the US did while fighting against the Germans can be considered impressive then?
Montgomery: "We need a plan of attack!"
Patton: "I have a plan: attack!"
Except Patton's attack got nowhere in the Lorraine for 4 months.
And which one would be accepted as a modern General ?
Monty: My plan would give us victory after a minimum time of 6 months and maximum of 12 months and involves lots and lots of carpet bombing and complex artillery barrages.
Monty I think had been scarred by his experience of the carnage of the First World War as a junior officer. Tactics then involved frontal assaults on heavily defended positions or alternatively subbornly resisting attacks by the Germans and facing the hell of heavy artillery bombardment. Monty had also been seriously wounded in that conflict. He was determined unlike Patton to try to minimise soldier deaths and casualties rather like military doctrine today.
Patton was Custer with internal combustion engines instead of horses. If he'd commanded smaller units like a division or regiment he might have met the same fate as Custer. He was a good, aggressive battlefield commander but not the guy for "big picture" strategy. Patt,like Custer, was a lousy administrator and a pain in the ass to his men and superiors.
I remember the book by Winterbotham (the Ultra Secret).
The author praised Patton’s very effective use of Ultra intelligence.
Men make two mistakes in life.
One believing a great general or warrior
Equals a moral person. They usually don’t.
The second one
We think a woman is as beautiful in the inside as she is beautiful on the outside.
Not underrated. Not overrated. Just fairly decent and fully competent. Plus its not like he was fighting the best of german forces. The real deal fought marvelously and valiantly but perished at eastern front.
Basically Patton took on the role envisioned for cavalry in WW1 - exploitation. Where there was a weakness and an opportunity to drive through the enemy and just keep going, Patton was your man. Where you needed to break through strong defenses, get somebody else in.
Fun fact: During WW1, future President Truman was in an artillery regiment that supported Pattons tanks during a battle but the two wouldn't meet until after the war was over. Another fun fact, Truman's eyesight was poor enough to deny him service, so to get in he memorized the eye sight test and fooled his recruiters.
You forgot to mention Patton murdered one of his own men in WWI.
Tbh Patton ended up the same way as Romania WW1 General Ion Dragalina.
Gravely wounded during an ambush shortly before the war was over if memory serves.
My dad was a Master Sgt. with the 4th armored. He told me that we thought he was crazy but right. We would have followed him to Moscow.
I have read extensively about WW2 and the military leaders. None of them were perfect. None. What a surprise that human frailties show up in military leaders. With regard to Paton, would you rather have him on your side or fight against him?
I think Patton was about as Reckless as he was Lucky. And hey if the Axis feared him it means he knew how to fight a war. Something no one can deny.
That's a big "if". They didn't know who he was. Before D-Day, they had whole dossiers on Ike, Monty & Bradley, but nothing on Patton. He barely got mentioned until Balck criticised his "timid and cautious" leadership during the Lorraine campaign.
Feared by the axis? lol yeah, sure, good...try
That's a myth, brother. The Germans didn't give a fuck about him. The ones that received most attention by the Germans were Monty, Eisenhower and Bradley because they were the main Western Allies commanders, why would the Germans care about a single Army general?
Very overblown.
I'm an old Army veteran. Despite differences between Patton and Montgomery, they were very similar. Both were very full of themselves, but they had successes and failures. The fact that they were with the soldiers and respected by them, makes for good leadership. But there were better commanders than them, who weren't trying to glorify themselves
@camrenwick Yeah Bill Slim and Lucian Truscott were decent generals.
Victor Davis Hanson has a lecture on YT about Patton. He gave three examples of when higher command should've listened to Patton, but didn't.
An example was the "relief of Bastogne". Patton argued that the smart play was not to drive to Bastogne and punch through to rescue the defenders. The smart play was to go in behind the Germans, encircle and cut off their supply lines. That would've taken thousands of Germans and their equipment out of the war permanently. But he was overruled.
He was one hell of a leader of men on the battle field!
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Every historical figure should be taken for what they were: Patton, Montgomery, Rommel... brilliant tacticians with their lights and shadows.
It's refreshing to read so many comments pointing out that Patton was not a particularly great general. His reputation owes largely to his personal bs, his adoring Press Corps, and a brilliant but inaccurate movie.
By any chance many of them were the fans of a certain General who the historian Jonathan Parshall calls a wretched Human being?
@@markgarrett3647mainly just fans of accurate history.
@@stephenmccartneyst3ph3nm85 True history fans would note how the Third Army got more stuff done than the entire 21st. Army group at Normandy and beyond with less.
@@markgarrett3647 " True history fans would note how the Third Army got more stuff done than the entire 21st. Army group at Normandy and beyond with less."
Against what opposition exactly? Monty and Bradley did the leg work of what happened in Normandy. They destroyed the German army, Patton fought left over units. 21st Army advanced 350 miles in 6 days, it took Patton 2 weeks to advance 60 miles. The third army is overrated.
Patton was a rash commander who suffered many more casualties than were necessary. His actions at the Battle of the Bulge are overrated as the Airborne division had the situation stabilized before Patton's men could arrive. His assault on patients suffering from shell shock is inexcusable and should have resulted not only in dismissal but court martial. He also dismissed great soldiers such as Teddy Roosevelt Jr. a man who proved his excellence at Utah Beach. Patton should be remembered as a sick man (he even had visions) who was an adequate commander. If he had been a soldier as his Uncle who died at Gettysburg, he may have been remembered as the USA best soldier ever.
If you were a sissy back then you were a sissy
Not like today's generation where EVERYBODY is a sissy
Reminds my a lot of Ulysses S Grant from the US Civil War. Sure he wasn't perfect, but in the end he got it done.
The guy was a disgrace to the uniform. The soldiers who fought under Patton called him the butcher and old blood and guts, because they hated his guts and that’s a fact that is often misinterpreted.
"We fought the wrong enemy. "
---- General George Patton
George "the butcher" Patton is not just one of the most overrated generals of ww2 but possibly one of the worst US generals too.
He was impulsive and reckless, he absolutely obsessed with his own personal image and glory that he had no hesitation wasting hundreds of thousands of his own men in order to boost his fame. And no I did not pull that figure out of thing air, he literally caused over 100 THOUSAND unnecessary casualties! Let that sink in....
Patton was obsessed with Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. Patton’s rivalry with Montgomery went beyond mere professional competition; it was a personal fixation that significantly influenced Patton’s actions and mindset during the war. This rivalry was not reciprocated; Montgomery did not rate Patton as a commander, he believed that he was reckless, undisciplined, threw his men's lives away unnecessarily and did not understand war on a strategic scale, there is no evidence whatsoever that Monty saw Patton as a rival.
During the Sicilian campaign Patton was so desperate to beat "that limey prick" that he needlessly sacrificed many of his men to satisfy his ego. His relentless pace often led to poorly coordinated attacks, overextended supply lines, and engagements in high-risk operations that prioritized speed over the safety and strategic positioning of his forces. His focus on winning the symbolic race rather than adhering strictly to coordinated Allied plans exposed his men to unnecessary dangers and contributed to significant losses that might have been mitigated with a more cautious approach. The US 7th army was not only up against an opposition inferior in number and quality (most of the elite German divisions were focused on stopping the British 8th army in the East) the 7th Army also had the advantage of navigating through MUCH easier terrain in western and northern Sicily, which included broader plains and coastal roads, whereas the British 8th has a narrow corridor through mountain passes.
Despite this, the casualties sustained by both the Us and British armies are almost at parity.
Patton's drive through Lorraine and the costly battle for Metz were marked by strategic miscalculations and unnecessary sacrifices, particularly evident in his decision to directly assault the fortress city despite its limited strategic value. The German forces defending Metz were not elite troops but rather a mix of invalids, older soldiers, and understrength units; yet, they were able to exploit the city's formidable fortifications and the adverse weather to inflict heavy casualties on Patton's forces. The U.S. Third Army suffered around 50,000 casualties during the Lorraine Campaign, with the battle for Metz alone accounting for significant losses. General Otto von Knobelsdorff, the German commander, was quoted expressing disbelief at Patton's strategy, stating that “A direct attack on Metz was unnecessary… a swerve northward in the direction of Luxemburg and Bitburg would have met with greater success” and could have collapsed the German right flank more effectively. 50,000 unnecessary casualties for a strategically insignificant target. As a point of reference, casualties during the "disastrous" Market garden were 17,000! Patton's ego and poor grasp on military strategy cause almost 3 times the amount of casualties that occurred at Market Garden.
Patton’s much revered drive to relieve Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.
Patton’s rush was characterized by an impulsive, high-risk approach that exposed his troops to severe weather, logistical issues, and heavy enemy fire, resulting in approximately 5,000 casualties-losses that were largely avoidable had Patton opted for a more measured strategy.
Despite the drama of the operation, the 101st Airborne Division, under Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, was far from being on the verge of collapse; their well-coordinated defense and high morale demonstrated their resilience and also the recklessness of Patton's actions. Many within the 101st later reflected that they were managing their situation effectively, with some stating, “We were in no way desperate,” which underscores that Patton’s intervention was not the critical rescue it was often portrayed to be.
Patton’s decision to drive his Third Army northward was driven by his characteristic recklessness and an eagerness for a personal fame, rather than a deep understanding of broader strategic needs. His manoeuvre strained supply lines, overstretched his forces, and diverted attention from more coordinated and sustainable efforts, highlighting his frequent prioritization of personal glory over sound military strategy. This rush exposed his tendency to act impulsively, often placing his men in dangerous situations that could have been mitigated by more strategic foresight and cautious planning. The total lack of value he showed towards his men's lives caused 5000 casualties.
If Patton was so successful at leading his troops why were they routed at the Kasserine Pass that required the British to come down and support the Americans?
As for the Germans being in awe of him, this is based on reports asked of the German Generals when they had been captured after the war. You're in American captivity and asked who is the best general you're not likely to say Zukhov!
In the Battle of the Bulge Patton's troops had to contain the German assault. The main concentration of fighting was in the North as that was where the direction of the attack was headed. It was aimed at the port of Antwerp. Montgomery had the Americans in that area placed under his command as their headquarters had disappeared!
Having 3 million Russians coming from the east helped a tad too
Should've listened to him.He had the Russians figured out.