MovieChat Forums > Patton (1970) Discussion > Excellent movie about a LUNATIC

Excellent movie about a LUNATIC

posted 10 years ago by LuvvieHowell
70 replies | jump to latest

TCM ran this last night and my husband and I watched every second of it..not even taking time for bathroom breaks.

The portrayal of Patton, WWII, and the ensuing battles that killed hundreds of thousands of people, I can say this, regarding General Patton: (just my opinion, mind you.)

1. He was mentally ill.

War is often a tragic necessity, but the sheer love this man had for blood, guts, gore and killing betray a deceased mind.

I read on some website, portions of a letter he wrote to his wife (more about THAT relationship in a minute) in which he brags about killing one of his own men by whacking him in the head...if true, this is HORRIFYING.

2. What kind of military leader has NO capacity or empathy for humanity? An unbalanced one, that's what kind! Generals were given a LOT of lee-way regarding their behavior...which tells me the "slapping incident" was far worse than portrayed in this movie. In fact, it only portrays ONE incident of Patton having a rage attack (verbal and physical) on a man who was shell-shocked.

3. He was a sexist, racist, PIG. Cheated on his wife, was rumored to have an affair with his own niece (how very Ancient Rome of him.) and once said "A colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor." What a POS.

4. He was such an aggressive, ruthless pro-war man that the Nazi's had a grudging admiration for him. Just think about THAT.

5. I wonder how many United States soldiers died because of his over-toe-top need to put them and himself in incredibly risky situations. He'd let his men go long period of time without food or sleep. And even worse, he was proud of it!

6. I don't believe he died in his sleep 12 days after a car crash (from which every other person involved was barely harmed.) I think he was put down, like the rabid animals that he was, by his own government. I also think that had he lived a longer life, he would have ended up mired in total senility.

There is nothing 'grand' or 'wonderful' about killing people. If there were a diplomatic way to diffuse a potentially violent situation, Patton would be opposed to it, (my own speculation.)

I would even go so far as to say that Patton himself suffered from shell-shock. we often lash out when we see qualities in others that we do not want to acknowledge about ourselves.

In a speech he made in 1944, he actually told a group of women (most of whom had sons who had died in battle) that "men who die in war are fools. The real heros are the wounded."

When he was told to stop the vulgar, aggressive war mongering speeches, he had a hard time controlling himself.

While this was a very, very good movie, it left me feeling sadness and despair over these types of military leaders who expect soldiers to be MACHINES, not human beings.

Just my 2 cents.

[–] Hotrodder 10 years ago

I started this thread a while ago stating my opinion that Patton was a psychopath- his lack of empathy and ruthlessness certainly suggests he was:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066206/board/thread/191152389

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/board/inline/140755174?d=222028104 %20#222028104

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] bababuiforu 9 years ago

Dont feed the trolls people. These two sad men spend hours denigrating a historical figure. Dont be like them.

[–] MisterMovieGuy 8 years ago

Just because he is a historical figure (and probably an American hero to many Americans) doesn't mean his character and personality are off limits for criticism.

The Allies were no doubt very lucky to have Patton. He was a great general, but I agree with OP that he was a lunatic and a psychopath. We admire him for his brilliance as a military strategist, but all too often we want to ignore the fact that sometimes it is those very characteristics mentioned above that make certain people such excellent architects of war and destruction.

Just be thankful he was on our side. If Patton had been a Nazi general, you can only imagine the things history would be saying about his ruthlessness and completely lack of regard for human life and peace.

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

If Patton had been a Nazi general, you can only imagine the things history would be saying

His name was "Rommel";

Anyway, the greatest, most successful German General of World War 2 was probably Erich Von Manstein-And I don't think most people even know who he was

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] Mannex17 7 years ago

hitler's also a "historical figure"

[–] Tommen_Forever 7 years ago

Nero and Caligula are historical figures. What's your point?

-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP

[–] whiskeyTango-06 10 years ago

you obviously have no historical understanding of patton the man, and anything you base on patton the movie is you not being able to tell the difference.

oh my...

[–] jrigeli2 10 years ago

He was a brilliant military strategist, but I have to agree with you about his character. The movie glossed over the depth of his flaws, but they did make references to it. Bradley thought he was unhinged.

[–] Hotrodder 10 years ago

He may have been a brilliant General- IMO he is overrated- but his character was severely flawed. I'm not saying he was a psychopath because I want to insult the man but because I genuinely think he was one. I also think Tony Blair is one too. Both distributed a lack of empathy and any guilt about their own soldiers deaths.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

He wasn't even a 'brilliant' general. Patton only had one way of fighting, trying to go forward as fast as possible. You can't always do that in war. In fact you can't do that most of the time in war. Patton was inflexible and not adept at changing with the occurring situations. His handling of the Lorraine/Metz camping in autumn 1944 was on the verge of debacle. As was his Hammelburg Raid near the end of the war. Patton was not a good commander when he couldn't move fast or manoeuvre.

I can't see anything that Patton ever did was 'brilliant'. A brilliant commander would be somebody like von Manstein, not Patton, who was always significantly numerically superior to his opposition. Patton didn't face much opposition in Normandy or the race across France, nor in the Lorraine, nor in the southern periphery of the Bulge, not in his advance across Germany. The figures the 3rd Army give for German casualties they inflicted is absolute fantasy hogwash and don't tally up with reality. Montgomery, Bradley and Hodges did far more to win the war against Germany in NW Europe 1944/45 and against far better equipped and tougher German forces than Patton. Patton wasn't in the thick of the Normandy fighting, Patton wasn't in the thick of the Westwall fighting, Patton wasn't in the thick of the Battle of the Bulge fighting and Patton wasn't in the thick of the fighting into Germany. The bigger and bloodier battles took place further to the north of Patton's area of operations.

[–] KobiyashiMauru 10 years ago

Well, the enemy feared him and he's one of the reasons why we aren't required to speak German today. 🇩🇪

[–] lezardormeurgeant 10 years ago

Thank you, sir.

I am no fan of Patton.
But men of war are by necessity men of violence against other men of violence.

However Patton didn't spend the time between the wars preparing for aggression.

The Nazis did and they had the wholehearted support of the Germans, once the latter discovered the flattering delights of jingoism.

(Although the good population of Berlin looked on in aghast silence when Hitler
paraded a whole panzer division through the capital in 1938, not an acclamation was heard.
Berlin is no Nuremberg.)

Not so with the Democracies : UK, France and the US rejected war with horror.
Churchill warned repeatedly against German militaristic mentality
(curiously alike to Ares/Mars the god of war, absolute arrogance, brutality and sadistic cruelty in victory; but cowardliness, whininess & self-pity in defeat)
and was branded a warmonger.
A long line of appeasers tried to woo Hitler with concessions & betrayals
of friends and allies, and unilateral disarming.
We know how it turned out and how it would have ended were it not for men
like Patton.

Rommel himself was no man of peace, despite all the whitewashing in saintly colors.
He had passion for only one thing : war.
And he was in Hitler's inner circle along with Himmler.
It was only when defeat reared its terrifying head that he thought of change,
but not of heart.
He didn't care for what cause he fought, like Jochen Peiper (Malmedy),
like Kurt Meyer, like Hans U. Rudel.
Pangs of conscience are unknown to them.
They whine 'bout Dresden, Hambourg, Cologne ... but don't want to be reminded
of Madrid, Guernica, Warsaw, Belgrade, London, Coventry, Antwerp and countless other cities reduced to rubble, the destruction by their heroic Luftwaffe they delightedly watched in newsreels, to the glorious tune of Liszt's "Preludes".

Messerschmidt prepared his Me-264 "New-York Bomber" before the B-17 raids.

It never occurred to them that wind-sowers should not marvel at harvest time.

While we are on a film site, listen again to Sarah Connor's words in "Terminator2" admonesting the scientist(played by Joe Morton)and his
colleagues for thinking themselves so creative in inventing scientific
marvels of death-giving devices.

We, the males of the species, always think of war & fighting in macho & sportive terms, despite hypocritical protestations to the contrary.

Women, because they bear and give life are more keen to its loss.

Edward Jablonski author of an iconic profusely illustrated 2-volume "Air War",
once proudly presented the achievement to his 2 little daughters.
The 2 precious ones looked at him as if seeing him for the 1st time, and at the books in consternation, not understanding the need for such a record.
Jablonski was honest enough to retell the incident in his preface, noting
that his daughters' attitude to war is just unmitigated horror.

The best book about Patton is Ladislas Farago's 1963"Patton - Ordeal and Triumph" which is no eulogy.
Another book on British Generals of a very entertaining reading is
Correlli Barnett's "The Desert Generals"🇬🇧
It explains why Democracies never like their best military servants.

Patton, like MacArthur, was a soldier who remained loyal to the end to the country and the democratic system he served without ever thinking of
Bonapartist plots for himself.
That's the benefits of Freedom both Generals fought so hard to preserve.🇺🇸

[–] sonofbeach-sheet 10 years ago

He was a lunatic because he was ARMY! The Army are some of the most impertinent meatheads ever to walk the Earth, no matter what their rank is! Some of the stupidest and most abusive people that have ever lived had very successful careers in the Army because of their self-confidence and alpha male personalities. The Air Force isn't as much like that; you get ahead because of how smart and tactful you are and sensitivity in dealing with people, with some exceptions.

Look at Army towns like Fayetteville, Columbus, Fairbanks, and Killeen and compare them to San Antonio, Colorado Springs, Minot, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, and the like. The first list are some of the biggest a-holish cities in America!

[–] silvercometred1 9 years ago

"He was a lunatic because he was ARMY! The Army are some of the most impertinent meatheads ever to walk the Earth, no matter what their rank is! Some of the stupidest and most abusive people that have ever lived had very successful careers in the Army because of their self-confidence and alpha male personalities."

Boy, have you got that right! I spent 32 years in Federal service - four with the Navy; then the rest working as a civilian with the Army. I'm retired now. I've seen some of those lunatic officers. (Of course the Navy had their fair share.) I've also seen some good ones. My last colonel was a good guy. I think it was because he was bird colonel and didn't want to be a general. He was on the list for promotion to a Brigadier General (one-star) but he retired before they could promote him because he didn't want to be a BG. (He would have to go back to Iraq - for the fourth time, if he was promoted.)

" . . . Army towns like Fayetteville, Columbus, Fairbanks, and Killeen . . . are some of the biggest a-holish cities in America!"

I can't speak for the last three but I was stationed at Fort Bragg, in "Fayette-Nam." The locals tried cleaning it up. The local Chamber of Commerce was even encouraging people "Don't say Fayette-Nam say Fayette-Nice." God what a joke! I entered and exited Bragg at the Randall Street Gate. I would go north on NC-87 to go home; but if you turned south on NC-87 (Bragg Blvd.) and drive about six miles you would come across strip joints, bars, pawn shops, tattoo shops, Adult bookstores, used cars lots (with high interest rates), smoke shops, and other questionable establishments (gambling dens). You could get "blew, screwed, and tattooed" within one block. There was a MALE Soldier that was gang raped in one of the bars, there. The local civilian government has tried to improve it but there is still a hell-holish atmosphere to Fayetteville.

[–] TheGreatWhiteHunter 9 years ago

My grandfather served in the 94th division, an adjunct to the the 3rd Army, and was engaged in the Battle of the Bulge. He told me that Patton was indeed a lunatic, a megalomaniac, a reckless commander, and a right wing nut job. My grandfather was a liberal democrat, and -- if he were still alive -- would tell everyone that he and his men would've followed Patton "to hell and back." To fight Hitler, perhaps the most evil man of the the 20th century, you needed a crazed military commander to do the unpredictable, the unexpected, the extraordinary to defeat him. Bad or good, Patton was our man, the only commander FEARED by the Nazis and Hitler, and he got the job done.

Now... go and judge him on that.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

Sounds great!

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Well, the enemy feared him

There is zero evidence the enemy feared him. Sheesh they never even sent their best forces to stop him. Their best forces were sent against Montgomery and Bradley and Hodges further to the north, not Patton.

What prime Waffen SS panzer divisions or Tiger tank battalions were sent in to stop Patton? I'll tell you........NONE.

[–] ChickNLittle 9 years ago

If you really want to delve into the psyche of a massively screwed-up WWII general, you really have to look no farther than Montgomery. His entire life he affected a virulent hatred for gays that masked his own homosexuality. The odd thing is, he had no apparent need to put on such a charade; many if not most of the best British generals were closeted gays, and as long as they didn't advertise it, they were generally left alone. The key to his behavior lies in the fact that Monty was also a paedophile; when free to do so he carried on romantic/sexual relationships with adolescent boys. And therefore his affected homophobia is much easier to explain as an attempt to hide these criminal tendencies. The sad thing is, if he had merely been gay one would of course feel sympathy for his situation (as we must for the other closeted gay officers who have served honorably in the past.) As it is, Monty comes across as simply a loathsome, disgusting predator, and a hypocrite to boot.

[–] BuddyLove63 9 years ago

What a load of nonsense your post is.

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

There's not a shred of evidence that Monty was actually gay or a paedophile, save the claims of one biographer who also presented no proof whatsoever. Monty seemed to have loved his wife and loved his son as a father should.
As for you idiotic assertion that other British generals were gay or paedophiles I'll treat that nonsense with the contempt it deserves.
Monty was many things, arrogant, difficult, sensitive but overall seemed to be a decent man who tried not to expend soldiers lives with the same wanton disregard that Patton did.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] ChickNLittle 9 years ago

Of course, Montgomery could not have continued on his paedophilic ways without the connivance of MI6, the Imperial General Staff, and HM government, up to and including the Prime Minister. Remember: Churchill himself had been rather famously accused of the same thing (by none other than Lord Alfred “Bosie” Douglas), so he was already constitutionally inclined to quash any such rumours that appeared about Monty, as long as the latter continued to perform adequately in the field. The difference of course was that the allegations against Churchill were probably false, while those against Monty were demonstrably true and stretched all the way back to his time at Sandhurst.

[–] silvercometred1 9 years ago

"His entire life he affected a virulent hatred for gays that masked his own homosexuality."

Is that why Patton was afraid that Monty was going to kiss him?

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 9 years ago

Patton's personal shortcomings are no secret, however, pretty much all of us have personal shortcomings. I have never heard about Patton killing one of his own men. I would need to see credible evidence that it happened. As it stands now, he is famous for slapping one of his own men, but not killing one.

At the end of the day, he was a brilliant strategist and tactician and when you are playing for the ultimate stakes, as you are in war, results are of penultimate importance. Lose a game of checkers, BFD. Lose a battle and one of the prices you end up paying is death. Then you have to add what will happen to your countrymen and family should your army be overrun. If you recall, the Nazis had a way of dealing with those they considered racially impure. So, if the welfare of my friends and family hang in the balance, I want the very best out there fighting for our side and I don't care how farking crazy he is.

Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.

[–] BuddyLove63 9 years ago

At the end of the day, he was a brilliant strategist and tactician

Where? In the Lorraine and Metz? No he wasn't brilliant there. Patton seems to have been brilliant when he can move fast against next to no opposition. When the enemy was tough and defended well, he wasn't a brilliant strategist and tactician. Even the Germans thought he was stupid to not bypass Metz.

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 9 years ago

I don't think you know what you are talking about. He stopped in Metz because his army ran out of gas, not because Patton thought the Allies needed it.

and when you say

have been brilliant when he can move fast against next to no opposition

You don't see the brilliance in that? He used the Germans own tactic - blitzkrieg - to hit them before they could even mount a defense in many cases. Stupid to run right at the strength of the enemy. That is how you get a lot of your own guys killed.

Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.

[–] BuddyLove63 9 years ago

I don't think you know what you are talking about. He stopped in Metz because his army ran out of gas, not because Patton thought the Allies needed it.

I know what I am talking about. Patton's handling of the Lorraine campaign is considered a debacle by many historians, with un-necessary casualties. Even the Germans thought he was stupid in not bypassing Metz. Don't blame it on running out of gas. Patton still couldn't take Metz by beginning of November '44. Patton had far more supplies and resources than his far fewer German counterparts in the Lorraine, plus complete air cover.

You don't see the brilliance in that?

What 'brilliance' is there in moving quickly against little or no enemy? Montgomery raced just as quickly to the Belgian border with little to no enemy in his way too.

All it shows is that Patton was rather good at moving with no enemy in his way. Big deal. He was hardly von Manstein.

He used the Germans own tactic - blitzkrieg - to hit them before they could even mount a defense in many cases.

When the Germans used blitzkrieg in 1939-1942, they were smashing powerful enemy forces along the way, in some cases with superior numbers to themselves. Patton never did that. Patton's 'blitzkrieg' was against little or no opposition.

Where exactly did Patton 'blitzkrieg' against powerful German forces? Please tell me. You have been watching too many Hollywood movies and you have been reading too many silly comic books.

Bradley and Hodges (not to mention Montgomery) did more to win the war in the west than Patton ever did. Patton's area of advances were devoid of the best and most numerous German divisions especially armour.

Stupid to run right at the strength of the enemy. That is how you get a lot of your own guys killed.

Um that's what he did at Metz....and got nowhere for ages.

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 9 years ago

I get it. For whatever reason you dislike Patton and who knows why. Maybe you just don't like Americans in general. I don't know and I really don't care. I will say in parting that history disagrees with you.

Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.

[–] MadTom 9 years ago

And let me take the occasion of what would've been Georgie Patton's 129th birthday (he was recovering in a hospital from a World War I battle wound when the Germans gave him a surrender for his 33rd birthday) to say that if liberating half a continent and contributing heavily to the defeat of the most genocidal totalitarian regime in world history is an indication of insanity, that's the kind of insanity that three generations of US Army Armor/Cavalry officers (myself included) have been aspiring to emulate since before his death 69 years ago!

I'm celebrating Patton's birthday as much as I'm celebrating Veterans Day today.

And after 15 years on these boards, I have only one individual on my ignore list, so I can only glean things from CptMorgansBeard's half of the conversation, but he has him nailed.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

If Mad Tom thinks Patton liberated half a continent he's an even bigger idiot than he proved to be before. Damn Hollywood, influencing so many people who have never picked up a history book in their lives.

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

Take it easy RE: Tom...I don't know about his reading habits (except he IS a Military Officer) but he 'lived a lot of history' as well.

Now as for other officers who did a better job than Patton; well a lot of the movie's input came from Bradley & given Bradley was not too fond of George, it's bound to be a bit biased. Come to think of it, Karl Malden's brother was wounded fighting under Patton's command so Malden didn't like George in REAL life & made an effort to show that in the film.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] MadTom 9 years ago

Thanks, Nick, but *beep* the pompous ass. He can read every book about his glorious Wehrmacht and Waffen SS Panzers that was ever published. That will never make him a real tanker! (I can tell that he's probably never been in uniform a day in his life, never slept a night outdoors under tactical conditions and probably never saw a moving tank outside of a parade!) I already showed him up for what he really is on the Fury board when his arguments were based on the premise that everything in US Army records and/or written by established military historians, including some British, that supported my claims was wrong and that American tankers lied about all their kill claims and/or were incompetent at vehicle identification, while the most genocidal totalitarian regime in recorded history was incapable of falsifying records or even at least being subjected to the fog of war while its armed forces were collapsing in chaos around it. The same genocidal totalitarian regime that "disappeared" (that's now proper grammar thanks to Joseph Heller) millions of its own citizens and reduced them to ashes under such a thorough propaganda screen that the people living next door to the death camps had no idea what was going on inside the wire. Just like the old Tom Lehrer song about the girl who killed her family by drowning her father in a creek, poisoning her mother with cyanide, setting her sister on fire, loading her brother down with stones and throwing him in the ocean and cutting her baby brother in two. The next verse went: And when at last the police came by/ Her little pranks she didn't deny./ To do so she would have had to lie.../ And lying, she knew was a sin!

He's an American-hating Nazi wannabe. ("I like Americans! Betty Boop! What a dish! Betty Grable! Nice gams! Go fly a kite! Cat got your tongue? I say, can you see...")

And as for US Army Armor Officers aspiring to be like Patton for three generations, that's just fact.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

Thanks, Nick, but *beep* the pompous ass. He can read every book about his glorious Wehrmacht and Waffen SS Panzers that was ever published. That will never make him a real tanker!

Please provide YOUR WW2 battle experiences then. Name your unit and where YOU saw action in WW2 then. Your fantasies won't ever make you a WW2 vet.

I already showed him up for what he really is on the Fury board when his arguments were based on the premise that everything in US Army records and/or written by established military historians, including some British, that supported my claims was wrong and that American tankers lied about all their kill claims

WTF are you talking about? I haven't even gotten involved in any such debates on the Fury board. You must have me mixed up with somebody else, dopey. I even told you that I had books by the author YOU cited. George Forty.

I have even referenced American and British tankers to back up MY points plenty of times on various boards. I even made YOU aware of the report that Eisenhower commisioned from the US 2nd Armored Division. You had zero idea about this report until I told YOU about it. You said I was lying when I mentioned that some American Sherman tankers had the opinion that Tigers and Panthers had better manoeverability than their own Shermans, particularly on soft ground. You accused me of making it up. I then directed you to the report where named individual men from 2nd Armored said exactly that.

Things like this you can't bare to be wrong about. You just can't stand being proven wrong and all you then do is resort to insults and personal attacks. You need to grow the hell up you big kid.

and/or were incompetent at vehicle identification,

Again, what are you talking about? All I said was that there were no King Tigers at Dessau in April 1945 (proven fact), that the Super Pershing never encountered any King Tigers (proven fact), that the Pershing and Tiger finished the war with a score of 1:1 (proven fact) and that many allied tankers called various German AFVs 'Tigers' when they weren't Tigers (proven fact).I asked you to give me the dates and locations of these 2 other Pershing kos of Tigers that you claimed happened before I corrected you and you went and hid without doing so. Now you are back ranting and raving as per usual.

It is a FACT that Richard Winters of Band of Brothers fame misindentified a Jagdpanther as a King Tiger south of Koevering. The Jagdpanther was from Schwere Panzerjager Abteiling 559 and there were no King Tigers south of Elst during Market Garden. In WW2, allied soldiers misidentified Tigers often.

He's an American-hating Nazi wannabe.

On the contrary. I am not a Nazi, don't have aspirations to be a Nazi and I had a great holiday in the USA last year and stayed with a dear friend in Dallas, Texas and visited many places in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. I loved it and the people.

You must be mistaking me for somebody else who is a Nazi. Or you are dyslexic.

And as for US Army Armor Officers aspiring to be like Patton for three generations, that's just fact.

Of course, because they watch the stupid movie and think it's real. In the same way the film Zulu has been shown to British and Commonwealth soldiers as part of military training...even though it is historically inaccurate. It means nothing.

Fellow American generals like Bradley and Hodges did more to defeat the Germans in NW Europe than Patton ever did, and were in far heavier fighting against more top quality German opposition. Whether you like that or not it doesn't make this any less a FACT.

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

And as for US Army Armor Officers aspiring to be like Patton for three generations, that's just fact.

What, they want to be in a car colliding with an army truck and get killed? That's a weird ambition.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

That's a weird ambition.

Well I somehow doubt Armor Officers aspire to be like Sgt. Bilko.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] MadTom 9 years ago

It's all about credibility. Once again I leave it to the court of public opinion and you good people of this forum!

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

Take it easy RE: Tom...I don't know about his reading habits (except he IS a Military Officer) but he 'lived a lot of history' as well.

C'mon nick, anyone whole claims Patton libetrated half a continent seriously needs to go back to school. He is ignorant and he can't stand being corrected. He spouts nonsense as fact and when he is proven wrong he resorts to insults and attacks. There are too many Mad Toms on these boards. They get their WW2 knowledge from the History Channel and Hollywood movies. He wasn't in WW2 so any military service he 'claims' is 100% irrelevant to these debates. It's completely meaningless. He has no more WW2 experience than I do or you do. He is overly xenophobic and overly zealous about his country and he hates non Americans. He thinks all and every German combat report and unit war diaries are bogus and he dismisses them as Nazi propaganda and lies. Nothing more. It's impossible to reason with an ignoramus of that mindset. He just doesnt like it when somebody with superior knowledge comes along and shows him up. He's like a big kid who had just had his toys taken away. He needs to grow up and stop acting like a big overgrown child. If I'm out of my depth I just don't go there in the first place. I stick to what I know. People like Mad Tom don't. That's his problem.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

Maybe you just don't like Americans in general.

You ARE aware that the other generals I referenced as doing more work than Patton WERE American? It's a shame that most Americans have never heard of AMERICAN generals like Bradley and Hodges, when they did far more to defeat Nazi Germany than Patton. This was my whole point.

Too many Americans (and others) believe Patton was George C Scott, almost single handely winning WW2 by himself and all his fellow generals were losers.

history disagrees with you.

No, history says the Germans didn't consider Patton any more a threat than any other general and in fact history says the Germans sent their best divisions to stop Montgomery, Bradley and Hodges and not the overblown and underachieving Patton.

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

All it shows is that Patton was rather good at moving with no enemy in his way. Big deal. He was hardly von Manstein.

That's what Blitzkrieg was:Rapid thrusts into the rear echelon, only stopping to fight when it was absolutely necessary.

Where exactly did Patton 'blitzkrieg' against powerful German forces?

Again, Blitzkrieg doesn't work that way. Not unless it has to. Patton used his tanks the same way - the correct way for WWII - just as Guderian had. Blitzkrieg was not a show of muscle and major battles were often less important than troop movements. It was an attack on an army's command structure. If the enemy could not respond - and they frequently could not - they would be defeated.

Just for the record, I think Patton was a lunatic too. I would probably rate him as the best allied general of the war though.

[–] DD-931 8 years ago

Agreed, jd-276. Never understood why Buddy, with all his military knowledge, always refused to concede that Patton OUTFLANKING German forces, not running straight into them, was what he deserved the greatest credit for. It's a classically successful military maneuver, equivalent to the naval maneuver of "crossing the T" on an enemy fleet, yet somehow when Patton did it he wasn't fighting enough Germans. Which is insane to me; the main indication that you've successfully pulled off an outflanking maneuver is that you AREN'T running into major enemy resistance. Of course, a lot harder to outflank the German forces at Metz, but in the end I think Patton fell into the same trap many Allied generals did in late 1944, assuming the Germans had already lost the war and would fold under enough pressure. A little premature there, although if you look at World War I you'll see in that war the Germans surrendered before the Allies reached Metz.

There are some clear indications that Monty actually WANTED Patton to outflank the Germans at Normandy, which should have been at least some of the logic behind drawing so many German forces to the British sector in the first place. But when it in fact worked out so well, I guess Buddy only wanted Monty to get all the credit. So be it. It does make sense that Monty should have gotten SOME of the credit for the Normandy breakout. But it's pure hypocrisy to complain about Monty not getting enough credit, and then doing the same to Patton. And of COURSE the Germans knew about Patton's success at Normandy. I believe a lot of them were there at the time.

I do agree with Buddy that American generals such as Bradley and Hodges should have gotten more credit for THEIR efforts (along with Truscott, who turned Anzio around and did so well in Southern France). This doesn't have to be a black & white assessment. I also agree that making Monty look bad just to make Patton look better is shaky logic, and certainly an unnecessary conceit.

[–] jd-276 8 years ago

Yeah, I agree with that. I would also suggest that you can't look at Monty's command without looking at corps commanders like O'Connor and Horrocks. These guys were very effective at that level and they inspired their troops. There seems to be a bit of a tendency, particularly if take the film literally, to forget that, while Montgomery might have been a PITA, he had a lot of very competent staff behind him.

[–] Squeeth2 8 years ago

Monty was the commander, he got all the credit.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] Tommen_Forever 7 years ago

So, if the welfare of my friends and family hang in the balance, I want the very best out there fighting for our side and I don't care how farking crazy he is.

This is why Abu Ghraib happened.

-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP

[–] nickm2 7 years ago

I thought AbGr was run by reservist MPs-mainly wymmins. Reservists & MPs are hardly gonna get the cream of the manpower. And what exactly did they do at AbGr? Make men show their peepees or wear womens underwear? It's been said a person had to drive past the mass graves of The Ba'ath party's vicitms to get to the prison-something like a many thousands of rebellious Shias were executed & buried there.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] Tommen_Forever 7 years ago

And what exactly did they do at AbGr? Make men show their peepees or wear womens underwear?

I doubt you'd be so flippant if it had been Americans who were being tortured.

-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP

[–] nickm2 7 years ago

Proud arab men humiliated by lezbo wimmins-perhaps. Tortured...I have my doubts.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] ChickNLittle 9 years ago

Another reason why Montgomery should be considered a disgusting hypocrite was his treatment of non-white peoples. His relentless, virulent hatred of blacks lasted until the day he died. Unlike Patton, and most other Allied generals who modified their racist views over time, over and over Monty would instead extoll the so-called “virtues” of racism and apartheid. As the western world moved farther and farther from support for South Africa, he continued to urge them to “stand strong” against granting any political and economic freedom for their black majority. Considering the damage Montgomery simultaneously did to the worldwide gay rights and civil rights movements, it’s really too bad it was Patton who was killed in ’45 instead of him.

[–] crakatoot 9 years ago

that kind of thinking is probably why women aren't aloud to fight in wars.

[–] rj-27 9 years ago

Hey, Luvvie. I agree with you about ol' blood and guts having a few loose screws. When your own commanding officer and supreme commander both have to reprimand you and humiliate you because you are out of even their control, you have character flaws that even the Army can't use.

While this was a very, very good movie, it left me feeling sadness and despair over these types of military leaders who expect soldiers to be MACHINES, not human beings.

On the other hand, acting like machines are just what the Army wants out of it components known as the enlisted man. Contrary to "Be all you can be", the Army does not want individualists, as Patton's opening speech amply confirms. The Army wants people who will follow orders without question or pause, no matter how dubious or wrong the cause is.

Patton reminds me of another military general that a war gave glory to: Ulysses S. Grant. He had no trouble whatsoever using his men as a battering ram against superior defenses (not superior forces), and did not spare the cost in human lives. That was the main reason this otherwise non-descript military man caught Lincoln's attention. Here was a general that would use his men as Lincoln wanted (unlike his predecessors like George McClellan) - throw waves of men against a wall and no matter the cost in lives, win by attrition.

Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

That being said, If McClellan hasn't been so timid he could have smashed the Army of Northern Virginia & enveloped the Confederate Capital in 1862 & ended the war Then & There....Most of Grant's men thought highly of him because he did bring the war to a close.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] Fingaroo 9 years ago

Patton reminds me of another military general that a war gave glory to: Ulysses S. Grant. He had no trouble whatsoever using his men as a battering ram against superior defenses (not superior forces), and did not spare the cost in human lives. That was the main reason this otherwise non-descript military man caught Lincoln's attention. Here was a general that would use his men as Lincoln wanted (unlike his predecessors like George McClellan) - throw waves of men against a wall and no matter the cost in lives, win by attrition.

Actually, what really caught Lincoln's attention was Grant's brilliant Vicksburg Campaign, which was--when you consider the strategic ramifications--the most decisive victory achieved by either side in the entire war. Given all of the recent scholarship which has largely debunked the “Lost Cause” myth, it’s really odd that the “Grant was merely a butcher” nonsense still endures as much as it does.

[–] heelmaster2000 8 years ago

He may have been a bit ... odd, but he got the job done for the most part.

[–] Abner_Kadabner 7 years ago

... it’s really odd that the “Grant was merely a butcher” nonsense still endures as much as it does.

Ummmmm... what about the Wilderness Campaign?

--------
Everyone may have an opinion but very few seem to have an informed one.

[–] nickm2 7 years ago

Kind of a 'one off'? Grant got his job for capturing a whole Confed army at Vicksburg--now the thing with Grant was that he was willing to use his numerical & industrial superiority & suffer the casualties to pin down & destroy confederate army units once and for all. Some had said that IF McClellan or some other Federal General had the 'will' they could have finished the war a couple of years earlier than it actually was.
Ah here is something I wrote earlier:

If McClellan hasn't been so timid he could have smashed the Army of Northern Virginia & enveloped the Confederate Capital in 1862 & ended the war Then & There....Most of Grant's men thought highly of him because he did bring the war to a close.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?