MovieChat Forums > PattonĀ (1970) Discussion > America celebrates bullies and war

America celebrates bullies and war


Patton was an anti-Semite

He believed the Jewish were sub human

His diaries confirm this

He did not believe african americans were capable of being in the army

reply

As I said on another thread:

None of the several Jewish soldiers who served on his staff or under his command, to include Major General Maurice Rose, commanding general of the 3rd Armored Division and the highest-ranking Jew in the US Army in World War II, ever recorded any perception that Patton felt any bias against them. Rose was a protege of Patton.

Of course, a few comments in diary entries and personal letters to his family completely outweigh the fact that he liberated more Nazi concentration camps and saved more Jewish lives than any other Allied field army commander on the Western front, and then forced the citizens of the German towns next to these camps to march through them to see what had happened under their noses.

reply

Even if one word you posted were true, how do you jump to the conclusion that "America celebrates bullies and war"?

You're not very bright, are you?

reply

Well said !!!!!!!

reply

Amen to that. The film is a biopic, a character study - not a war picture.

reply

Look for your safe space somewhere else.

reply

Men like Patton may not always be cuddly, but without them we'd be ditch-digging slaves a long time ago. The only thing that stood between the Nazis and the rest of us were men like Patton. Have some gratitude. And I say this as someone who's mostly anti-war---but WWII was a worthwhile one, no?

reply

... but WWII was a worthwhile one, no? -- bcharrison09

That's actually a VERY interesting question - it would be good one to discuss. The answers are not that obvious.


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

reply

If a Nazi regime sounds fun to you, I salute you. You're more flexible than I am.

reply

"If a Nazi regime sounds fun to you,..."

It doesn't, and why you would jump to such a ridiculous conclusion is beyond my comprehension. On the other hand, the USSR somehow was an acceptable ally, and Stalin was about as blood thirsty as Hitler. And Stalin was instrumental in making WW II inevitable!

But one of the big questions is why did any American soldier have to die fighting in Europe? How many times is that question discussed?

And while we asking questions, why isn't Britain or France held responsible for starting WW II in the first place?


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

reply

America celebrates bullies and war


Every country celebrates bullies and war.

What's with all these people who seemingly hold America to a different standard than every other country on Earth? And I can't help but notice that all these America-bashers are invariably too ashamed to identify their own country.

reply

When some of the foreign apes who beat on with their America Bashing, & the 'genocide of the natives' I always ask 'em if their talkin' about the Spanish or the Portuguese--invariably they get 'pinned' by the comparison with other nations who got their start in this hemisphere & they have to admit that The US got the same start as Haiti or Mexico or Colombia...



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

reply

Yeah, I know the involvement of Stalin makes the whole thing have its grey areas---that's life; things aren't just simple good and evil. But I think we can all agree that the Nazis were something that had to be stopped, and that Patton was instrumental in doing so. I don't care how many cowards he slapped or how many dubious allies we had---Patton is a hero and I'm grateful to him for saving us.

Oh, and the idea that Britain and France "started the war" is outrageous. They appeased Hitler plenty, and he just kept on gobbling neighbouring countries. If he'd eaten all of Europe, would it be acceptable to declare war then? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. A regime like that had to be broken and crushed with the swiftest, most brutal course possible. That was good.

reply

I assume your post was directed toward me instead of nickm2. And I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be a bombastic troll, just to get people to think about things. First off, it really isn't outrageous to say that Britain and France started WW II as it's a historical fact: On 1 Sep 1939, Germany invaded Poland which meant there was war between Germany and Poland. Unless I have an unrealistic size of the world that does not strike me as a world war. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany, which means World War II started on 3 Sep 1939 - right?

Sometimes when you're trying to evaluate something, it pays to look at it the other way around, and see if your original conclusions still holds. Assume for this discussion that the issue had not been about Poland, but about Ireland. Assume that the British government decided that granting Ireland its independence had been a mistake and wanted Ireland to rejoin the United Kingdom. And further suppose that Germany (assume that there is no Hitler, that the Chancellor is still von Papen) signed a treaty with Ireland. And then on 1 Sep 1939 British troops invaded Ireland to retake it. If Germany then declared war, would you blame Britain for starting the war and side with Germany?

But what about the other question I raised? Why did Patton even have to go to Europe? Had the US not sent any troops what would have happened? The Soviets would have simply ground down the Germans and eventually reached the Rhine River. End of war. The real reason we fought in Europe was to prevent the Soviets from taking over Western Europe. But the question still remains as to why hundreds of thousands of Americans had to give life and limb to stop the Soviets.

And you're right about war often being a gray area. Allying with the USSR is the best example of the old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Not that we would ever actually be friends with them....


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

reply

I hear you---but remember, it wasn't just Poland. The balance of power in Europe was always precarious and touchy, and Hitler had taken first the Sudentenland, then Austria, THEN Poland. A militant power taking over neighbouring countries like that was alarming. And Hitler agreed, in '38, that he wouldn't take over anything else, after Austria. Then Poland happened. There's no way an ongoing land-grab such as that wouldn't lead to a war. Hitler was the first since Napoleon to go for it in such a way.

As for the U.S. involvement, that's hard to say. The Soviets played a vital role, but not so much in North Africa or Italy. There were different fronts, and the Soviets couldn't be everywhere. If that '41 winter wasn't so outrageously cold, to the point of freezing fuel, the Nazis might have swept right over them and then gone on to pulverize the rest of the Allies. All in all, I think it's mighty lucky that the States were in the war---they did a lot. I'm Canadian, by the way, so fairly unbiased.

And if the States were just one of many key Allies in Europe, no one can deny the huge and leading role they had in the Pacific. I know, I know---what's the connection? Well, apparently enough of one to have it all under one war. The World War wasn't just about Poland---the Japanese had something to do with it also.

reply

This is one of the things that I'll miss when these boards go away in a couple of weeks, the ability to discuss things like this. I should note that I studied history and international relations in college, so this subject is right in my wheel house. You might not believe it, but scholars from those two disciplines can have very different views on something as presumably obvious as WW II, the Cold War, even the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is much more complex than one might assume. And I want to make it clear that I'm no apologist for Hitler or the Nazis.

But you have to look at it in the context of European history. Before 1945 this was a common thing, as countries often went to war against each other. And one could see that what they were doing was to reacquire territories that had been stripped from them in the Treaty of Versailles. The Rhineland, the Saarland, Austria, the Sudentenland, the Polish Corridor, and Memel were German territories. This fact, along with the simple fact Britain and France were still deeply mired in the Depression, was why they didn't stridently oppose Hitler. I wonder if it had been possible for Chamberlain to know what would have happened because of the war if he would have still done it. Britain suffered terribly from it, and even though they won, it took them decades to recover from the effects.

I also forgot to ask another question in my previous post: if Britain and France HAD to declare war on Germany after invading Poland, then how come they didn't declare war on the USSR after they invaded Poland? Enquiring minds want to know...

However, the war in the Pacific was a different critter. The US had every right to fight the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. If the US had put the brunt of its war effort in the Pacific (instead of in Europe as it did), then that part of the war might have ended sooner (even without the atomic bomb).

That's the problem with doing the "what-if" aspects of history - if you change something you'll never know what will happen. On the other hand, if there had been no WW II, think how different today's world would have been. There wouldn't be desktop computers, smart phones, or the Internet. We'd be wondering if we would ever go to Moon. And there would have been no rock and roll, at least what we think of it today. That's not to say it was worth the deaths of tens of millions of people, but it does make you wonder.


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

reply

They're shutting down the message boards?! I wasn't aware. That's unfortunate. Just looked into it, and it seems they can't police people's thoughts and expression enough for it to be "positive" for everyone and their poodle. Pfft. Dark times.

Anyway, I'm not for a moment suggesting WWII (or any war) was simple and with only one interpretation. I'm not at all formally educated, but I've read a ton of history and I'm familiar with the fact it's not clear-cut, thanks. And as I acknowledged, everything concerning the Soviet Union just adds a fascinating layer of grey to it all.

I'd like to say thanks for a spirited debate---debate is being eroded right now, as two extreme ideologies just scream at each other across the fence and silence any opposition. I really can't grasp the kind of mind that would actually get upset over something a stranger said to them over the internet, but apparently folk are so delicate that their precious feelings must be protected, and we can't have these discussions anymore.

Would I sacrifice tens of millions to have rock and roll? Honestly, probably. And with that last middle finger to the fascistic politeness they're rolling over everything, I'm signing off.

reply

Well like the movie showed he had many personal failings but he was a brilliant general and motivator. War is mass murder. There is no polite way to fight a war. We needed men like Patton to win and the world is better because we won. As far as him being a likable person, like Patton said he did not want his men to like him, he wanted them to fear him more than the enemy. As for him being a racist, well that may well be right. But would blacks and Jews be better off under fascism ? Thanks to men like Patton the world was liberated from fascism. As for America being a bully and liking war. IF you look at the history of WW2 America did not want to go into war. It was very unpopular. Both presidential candidates promised to keep us out of it because it was so unpopular. But once we were attacked the American people united to destroy our enemies. We were not the bullies, the fascists were and we stood up to the bullies.

reply