General Patton had a bad opinion of Russians

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 24 Nov 2002 20:06

Maple 01 wrote:
Your honourable but a bit naive thinking that he should remove himself from command is not the way the world worked back then.
No, he should have been removed from his post by his superiors and shipped to a back-water somewhere - look at the problems caused by Mc Arthur in Korea because no-one had stamped down hard on military mavericks
What everyone tends to forget in their Armchair soapbox is that there were another 6 or more fronts going on in the rest of the world. Some of them 12,000 miles apart, of which both the US and UK fought on.
Don't forget our Commonwealth and continental chums as well (for any Canadians viewing this who tend to get overlooked by British historians in the same way American historians (with a few honourable exceptions) seem to do with the rest of the world). The Russians were his intended targets though


Regards

-Nick
I am aware that the Commonwealth nations fought on almost every front, all I was making clear is that the Soviets were not the only ones fighting the war as many try to make it appear.

Actually Patton lost his Army once because of politics and the era's PCness. Perhaps with him in command the blood bath that continued in Italy till the end of war may have never happened.

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 24 Nov 2002 22:54

Actually Patton lost his Army once because of politics and the era's PCness. Perhaps with him in command the blood bath that continued in Italy till the end of war may have never happened.
Patten lost his command because of insubordination, no good pointing the finger at the PC brigade, he brought it on himself.
Soviets were not the only ones fighting the war as many try to make it appear.
Now you know how the rest of the world feels about Hollywood’s version of WW2! :wink:


Patton, 'old blood and guts' or as some in third Army used to say, 'our blood, his guts' :wink:

Regards
-Nick

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 24 Nov 2002 23:27

I couldn't remember what he did to loose command, seems he shot his mouth off round the press just after the end of the war. I checked the Patton Society web site and do you know its not mentioned on the four page biog? No, he saved the world, humiliated Monty, planned all the ETO amphibious ops and was Captain America - but no slapped shell shocked men,futile attacks, publicity seeking or trying to start WWIII- what a modest chap!

Regards
-Nick
Last edited by Maple 01 on 24 Nov 2002 23:28, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 24 Nov 2002 23:27

Anyone need any more proof he was a crazy megalomaniac? Anyone want to give me stats for the relative strengths of 3rd Army and all Soviet forces in the west?
actually he might be just smarter than you think. He might have very well said that because he was damn sure that he would not have to fight them. Such a flaming though was bound to score some political points with the right wingers and counting in the upcoming cold war it would come as a handy political baggage.

alsaco
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 15:50
Location: France, Paris

Post by alsaco » 25 Nov 2002 00:11

Quotes by Patton on russians troops in 1945 must be compared with what he wrote about american troops in Tunisia after Kasserine, about british troops in Sicilia when in Messina, about german troops and civilians when he got command of an Army in Normandy, about Bradley when he learned that he had been bypassed by this armygroup commander, about Montgomery on all occasions

Patton was a very good general for armoured action, but a very poor diplomat, and maybe a not so efficient manager for global operations. He benefited from a very large supply of materials, and first class divisional officers. However in one case, the stop on the Mosel, with restricted gasoline and deficient ammunition supply, he did not solve the problem in a better manner then his neighbours.

Remember also his dreams and nigthmares. Obviously he was in some ways not entirely normal. Reincarnation of Napoleon and other conquerors, remembering his presence in big battles of the past, are not everyman's thoughts.

Patton would certainly have liked to be the MacArthur of Europe. Had he not been killed in a road accident, he would certainly have produced a lot of embarassment to Truman and Eisenhower.
But in the US Army, there was no place for autonomous war leaders, and things would certainly have been stopped rapidly. Military dictators are not a risk in the USA.

To Oleg, I would say that he must not take Patton's declaration too serously. Patton was a first world war officer, returned to obscurity. Being in position to be the hero he thought he was, he took the short way, hate the ennemy, and manage to keep permanently someone to hate
Mongols, Russian, Soviets, Communists, I am not sure Patton had really an idea of what was meant by these words.

Remember allways that if the red army had felt and seen what war in his country meant, the american and english troops were still fighting an enemy supposed to be elegant and officers supposed to be gentlemen.
They did begin to understand that nazi, occupation, gestapo and KZ meant only in 1945, when the Rhine was crossed. They had no references to german SS or Polizei raiding british or american villages and towns.

I therefore think that to take Patton's declaration for more than "paroles en l'air", freezing words, is giving to big an importance to what he said.
Patton was a good general, but as a man, he probably was less interesting.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 25 Nov 2002 08:56

Maple 01 wrote:
Now you know how the rest of the world feels about Hollywood’s version of WW2! :wink:


Patton, 'old blood and guts' or as some in third Army used to say, 'our blood, his guts' :wink:

Regards
-Nick
Sorry to disappoint you but I watch movies for entertainment not history lessons.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 25 Nov 2002 17:23

alsaco wrote: Remember also his dreams and nigthmares. Obviously he was in some ways not entirely normal. Reincarnation of Napoleon and other conquerors, remembering his presence in big battles of the past, are not everyman's thoughts.
Patton was that kind of career soldier which every army in world would forget to the remotest base on some god-forsaken place on the surface of earth and would never admit that they posess that kind of man in their ranks, during peacetime !!

During war such men are extremely valuable. IMHO Pattons real contribution was that he in his very pecualiar way showed such arrogance and self-confidence, from which green men on his ranks (and whole western allied side) could draw when going against the much respected, and maybe a bit feared enemy.

He was a real hellblazer. And i would bet that in remote bases in Alaska, or Irkutsk, or Sodankylä there is similar men also today, which have to be kept out of sight until they are needed...

User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 25 Nov 2002 23:23

Dont even start...
Sure he didn't like communism and sure he hated monty, as well he sould. BUt when it comes to field commanders, he was one of the best, up there with Rommel, Guderian, Manstein. He plan for Falaise gap was very good, if ike and monty didnt stop him, he could have desttoryed/captured all 50 german "divisions", inlcuding 10 panzer. But he was hampered by SHAEF. HE was the best the allies had.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Post by Michael Kenny » 26 Nov 2002 01:50

It is true that Patton thought he could force his way across and 'block' the Falaise escape route. However others more wise than him realised to do so might result in the Germans simply trampling over Patton and escaping. If I remember correctly the words used about not letting him risk everything were ' better a stiff shoulder than a broken neck'. No one, not even Patton, could have captured or destroyed 50 German divisions at Falaise because there simply weren't that many there!. He was not the best Allied General.

User avatar
General Patton
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 25 Sep 2002 21:48
Location: USA

Post by General Patton » 26 Nov 2002 22:38

He was not the best Allied General.
yeah, who then
Plus, patton would have secured the noose, then been supported by the rest of the allied armies.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: General Patton had a bad opinion of Russians

Post by Roberto » 27 Nov 2002 11:16

planet x wrote:General Patton's Quotes
[...]
I'll say this ;the Third Army alone with very little help and with
damned few casulaties,could lick what is left of the Russians in six
weeks. You mark my words.Don't ever forget them.[...]


Mr. Show Off Patton, once again.

In his book "War as I knew it", if I well remember, stated that his 3rd. Army inflicted ca. 158,000 fatalities on the Germans throughout its time in combat.

If we consider, on the one hand, the overall casualties of the German and Allied armed forces in Northwest Europe between D-Day and VE-Day:
Since D-day in Normandy the Germans in the west alone had lost 263,000 dead, 49,000 permanently disabled, and 8,109,000 captured. Allied casualties were 186,900 dead, 545,700 wounded, and 109,600 missing (some later declared dead and others later repatriated as prisoners of war)


Source of quote:

Recovery of France, by Charles B. MacDonald, Chief World War II Branch, Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army,
http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_5.html

and, on the other hand, the casualties of the 3rd. Army during the same period:
US 3rd Army Under the leadership of General George S.Patton, it first became operational on August 1, 1944.
By October 15, it had suffered 5,438 killed and 27,111 wounded.
By V.E.Day (May 8,1945) 21,441 Third Army men had been killed and 99,224 wounded.
Non battle casualties amounted to 111,224. Another 16,200 went missing,
(POWs).
The grand total of casualties during the nine months of fighting was
248,427.
The losses in material included 308 light tanks, 949 medium tanks and 175
guns.
Source: http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/facts.html

we come to the following calculation which, without even including the
Allied MIA's that turned out to have been killed and not taken prisoner,
illustrates the utter absurdity of Patton's estimate of enemy casualties:

Allied campaign in Northwest Europe, June 1944 to May 1945

(Ratio = German KIA for every 100 Allied KIA)

German KIA: 263.000; Allied KIA: 189.600; ratio: 139

By 3rd Army (according to Patton): 158.000; 3rd Army KIA: 21.441; ratio: 737

By other Allied units: 105.000; KIA other Allied units: 168.159; ratio: 62

This table shows that, if Patton's estimate were correct, his forces would
have inflicted 7 KIA on the enemy for every one of their own, while all
other Allied forces in the ETO suffered losses considerably higher than
those of the enemy.

This, in turn, would mean that, while Patton was the greatest military genius of all time and the 3rd. Army a force wholly made up of Rambo-like warriors, all other American, British and French commanders were comparatively incompetent and their troops (including such units as the
US "Big Red One" First Infantry and the British "Desert Rats", not to mention the airborne divisions) a congregation of green recruits.

That this cannot be true is all too obvious, so the equally obvious conclusion is that Patton exaggerated enemy casualties as few generals in history have done - maybe to avoid or counter criticism related to his own forces' quite high losses.

Patton was still the best Allied general. As they say down here, among the blind the one-eyed is a king.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 27 Nov 2002 11:33

Roberto -

Agree that it is quite clear that Patton's/3rd Army's casualty infliction claims can not be taken seriously. Not only do they not correlate with German sources, they don't even correlate with allied sources, as you demonstrate.

However, I don't have a high opinion of MacDonald's figures either. Firstly, he is not exactly known for his deep research into German sources. His book on the Bulge has been criticised for it's complete reliance on US sources, with the inevitable attending inaccuracies as far as the German side is concerned. In any event his comparison is very strange. Firstly, he does not give comparable numbers for the two sides - KIA, "disabled" and POWs for the Germans, and KIA, wounded and missing for the allies. When, on top of that, the German POW number obviously includes all personnel that went into captivity at the cessation of hostilities, these numbers are virtually useless.

cheers

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 27 Nov 2002 11:46

Qvist wrote:Roberto -

Agree that it is quite clear that Patton's/3rd Army's casualty infliction claims can not be taken seriously. Not only do they not correlate with German sources, they don't even correlate with allied sources, as you demonstrate.

However, I don't have a high opinion of MacDonald's figures either. Firstly, he is not exactly known for his deep research into German sources. His book on the Bulge has been criticised for it's complete reliance on US sources, with the inevitable attending inaccuracies as far as the German side is concerned. In any event his comparison is very strange. Firstly, he does not give comparable numbers for the two sides - KIA, "disabled" and POWs for the Germans, and KIA, wounded and missing for the allies. When, on top of that, the German POW number obviously includes all personnel that went into captivity at the cessation of hostilities, these numbers are virtually useless.

cheers
Well, they were what I had when I did this comparison two years ago.

If you have figures for German and Allied casualties in Western Europe during the period between 6 June 1944 and 7 May 1945 that you consider reliable, please let me know. I would be very interested.

Cheers,

Roberto

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 27 Nov 2002 11:59

Hello Roberto

Well, as you know, there is a general problem with reliable German casualty figures in 1945 for readily apparent reasons. I do have some overviews at home in the KTB OKW (but am unfortunately without net access there at the moment). I do recall that it puts casualties in the West for all three armed branches at ca. 600,000 for the final six months of 1944.

cheers

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 27 Nov 2002 19:26

Qvist wrote:Hello Roberto

Well, as you know, there is a general problem with reliable German casualty figures in 1945 for readily apparent reasons. I do have some overviews at home in the KTB OKW (but am unfortunately without net access there at the moment). I do recall that it puts casualties in the West for all three armed branches at ca. 600,000 for the final six months of 1944.

cheers
OK, when you recover your home net access (hopefully soon), please let me know.

Best regards,

Roberto

Return to “USA 1919-1945”