MovieChat Forums > Ike: Countdown to D-Day (2004) Discussion > Patton wrongly protrayed

Patton wrongly protrayed

posted 18 years ago by ez_liquidsnake
16 replies | jump to latest

I'm a student the University of Illionis Chicago studying History. I read most of Patton's great biographers.

In the scene where Patton comes into Ike's office and Ike talks to him about his past actions and his rasicm problem.

This is incorrect because Ike and Patton were good friends. Nearly the best, they were both early tank commanders and Patton was Ike's superior for 2 years. They devopled a unbreakable bond even more than Ike's and Bradley's bond.

Also the scene where it shows him hugging Ike is just tottally *beep* As friends Patton would have never thought about that.

... (also Bradley is wrongly casted, he was much older)

[–] jmmccann 18 years ago

Read Eisenhower: Soldier and President. The material on Patton was taken directly from that.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sawyertom 18 years ago

I read Stephen Ambrose and it seemed a little different to me as well. Ike bleieved they wouldn't win the war without Patton, becaus eof his understanding of tank and armored tactics. But, I alos know he had to keep him in line as well.

[–] 0DegreesKelvin 18 years ago

Actually, that scene plays out what happened pretty well. Patton didn't really hug Ike, but he put his head on Ike's shoulder, which caused his helmet to fall to the floor. I don't know if the reaction that Selleck portrayed was accurate or not.

Although Patton and Ike were close friends, Patton's actions did place a tremendous strain on their relationship, and things were never really the same between them afterwards. I'm sure that if Patton had lived beyond 1945, they would have reconciled their differences and become the best of friends again. But as much as I admire Patton, he had no qualms at all about influencing people to get what he wanted, and that didn't stop at Ike.

Probably the best bio of Patton is "Patton: A Genius for War" by Carlo D'Este. It's huge, at well over 1000 pages, but it's the most comprehensive and accurate Patton biography in existence.

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

In this film IKE says that Rommel thinks Patton is his 'ace'.

In spring 1944 Patton wasn't seen by the Germans as anything like the kind of 'ace' allied general implied in this film at all. In fact the majority of the German staff didn't even have that opinion of Patton even after the Ardennes.

It's become one of the great myths of post WW2.

In spring 1944 all Patton really had under his belt was an advance across Sicily, where he only beat Montgomery by a couple of hours and where neither were fast enough to trap the Germans before they could retreat across to the Italian mainland. Patton was more famous for his soldier slapping in spring 1944.

[–] gleebley2002 12 years ago

One of the reasons for giving Patton command of the fictional 1st Army was because the Germans were sure that the Allies would have Patton leading their invasion force. In fact, they couldn't imagine anyone BUT Patton leading it. The ruse worked pretty well as the bulk of Rommel's forces remained across the Channel from Patton's until they had confirmation of the size of the Normandy invasion.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 12 years ago

Wikipedia has a great repository of quotes by German generals about Patton. While I generally wouldn't lean on Wiki's scholarly integrity all of them are sourced to reputable books.

"I had a big lunch that DIDN'T tempt fate!"

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

Wikipedia has a great repository of quotes by German generals about Patton.

Only TWO German generals or higher ever said he was 'the best'.

That's not a consensus opinion, just two.

And those opinions were made after the war and not in spring 1944, when he actually wasn't rated all that highly by the enemy before he had much of a track record under his belt.

If you read the quotes in full you will see they are being specific about just his attack minded armour led abilities. His difficulties and non flexibility when coming up against stubborn resistance or fortified positions (Brest, Metz etc) were not touched upon.

[–] murad23 9 years ago

You claim ahs been debunked by the peer reviewed work and primary sources in Germany. Patton was in fact widely viewed by the German General Staff -- and correctly -- considered to be the best field commander.

And Patton at Brest? What are you even talking about? he advocated and accomplished the successful strategy, the isolation of the garrisons at beast with his brilliant southwesterly slice in operation Cobra.

[–] bob-1135 11 years ago

I believe there has been a lot of nonsense spoken about Patton’s qualities as a combat commander. People seem to forget that the only battles he fought against the Germans were when they had been largely defeated and were basically on the run. In the invasion of Sicily for example he took the easier mid island route which was lightly defended and the British and Canadians took the heavily defended coastal route.

On D Day he was on the right flank of the Allied assault where the Canadians and British were on the left flank and drew most of the effective Panzer divisions away from him. His impetuous behaviour is well shown in his dash across France which led him running out of fuel. If he had been facing a real opposition at that point the Germans would have mopped him up without breaking a sweat.

It is a lot easier facing a defeated enemy who was running out of ammunition and fuel and manned with second grade troops than facing someone like Rommel and the Afrika Korps sweeping across North Africa in full flood. Don’t forget when the Americans first went up against Rommel at Kasserine Pass they took a severe beating; they thought because Rommel was retreating from the 8th Army he would be easy pickings - not so. When Patton took over on March 6th, once again he was facing a defeated enemy.

Show me a commander, like Wellington, who can stop and defeat a previously triumphant enemy and that is a Great Warrior.

[–] gleebley2002 9 years ago

There are too many errors in this to take it seriously.

Patton actually faced the more heavily fortified mountain passes in Sicily.

Being punished by Ike, he was sitting in England on D-Day only being used as a ruse for the Germans to think he would lead the main invasion at the Pas de Calais. (The ruse worked as most of Rommel's forces were in Calais instead of Normandy)

Patton beat the Germans so badly he had to be called off until everybody (including supply lines and Monty) could catch up.

And, of course, he did the unthinkable in extricating his troops from a winter battle, traveling 100 miles in 24 hours and defeating the Germans and rescuing McAuliffe's surrounded troops in Bastogne.

Patton was a loose cannon, but he was a bad arsed loose cannon.

[–] murad23 9 years ago

Like a lot of Brits you actually don't know nearly as much about the war, at leas the winning the war part of the war at all.

Patton was at D-Day landings? really? he was not there at all.

if you mean the battle for Normandy, do you really think two gigantic mistakes by Montgomery which prolonged the ware and got massive amounts of top Americans, UK French and Canadian (and even Polish) soldiers killed was not "impetuous?"

it was impetuous and idiotic -- and part of a long record of Montgomery's botches everyone covered up to be nice to the UK.

By the way in NA Rommel was BETTER supplied and armed when he was facing the Americans then when facing Montgomery.

Every strategic decision by Montgomery was a mistake and half his tactical ones were as well.

As for Sicily - please get a grip. Patton faced much more difficult toads and defense points

And you seem not to be familiar with the order of battle at waterloo. Wellington commanded superior forces, with superior numbers, superior equipment., Brilliant? my grandmother could have won that battle

[–] bob-1135 9 years ago

You are correct of course Patton wasn't at D Day I meant the battle for Normandy. As for the rest of your diatribe I'm sorry it's just rubbish.

Your knowledge of the war is incredibly poor you really need to educate yourself.

Your English by the way is appalling I would hate to face more difficult 'toads'.

As for Waterloo, yes I rather think I know more about it than you. I lecture on Military subjects and Waterloo is one of the lectures I give.

[–] smigrobustus 11 years ago

Racism problems???? Just EXACTLY, with facts to back you up....we're his untruths???? He may have been UNCOMFORTABLY BLUNT, but he was right on every point.

[–] murad23 9 years ago

The problem is if you take ANYONE from that time and look at their statements they can be labeled racist.

Montgomery used utterly despicable racist terms for N. Africans. UK civilians and military routinely used racist language against African American troops and we have examples of UK military and civilian officials insisting they be uniquely segregated while in England.

and soft spoken "nice guy" Bradley did not want black troops integrated into US forces

[–] ryan-anderson 8 years ago

To be honest, I've always had a hard time believing that scene. I know Ike chewed him out for the comments on the Russians and the slapping incident. But the whole scene had sort of a contrived feel about it (written from present day societal views). While I know Ike feared the fallout with the Russians.....I have a hard time believing there was some sort of lecture on racism.

Ignoring: QuesterJonesV, MythicCDXX, Creeping Jesus/Judas, RonPaul_Lies, Digby (and aliases), ibestupid, Holiday_Hobo, sharon_18, TilaMoo, Okie-from-Muskogee/boo321, NorCalNik, Nullifidian