General Patton had a bad opinion of Russians

Maple 01 · Post by **Maple 01** » 27 Nov 2002 20:15

I said

Now you know how the rest of the world feels about Hollywood’s version of WW2!

(when talking about a perceved underapreciation of the US's importance in WW2)

Caldric said

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

Fine mate, if you're happy with the distortion of history in the name of a good story, just don't get upset when someone produces a film that shows the US 3rd Army being beaten by the Volksturm and two SS men armed with broom handles after they are caught massacring surrendered civilian women and children - all factual lies of course, but some of the 'counter factual' historians would be only too glad to produce such pap as entertainment

While I accept you are a mature individual that can differentiate between Hollywood and reality there are many people who can't. How many kids, if asked, for example would think that Telly Savalis alone saved the American front during the winter of 1944/45 after watching 'Battle of the Bulge'? or that American Rangers and Parras took on tiger tanks on D-day as in SPR? Or should we pass on 'Combat' (1950s or 60s TV show set in WW2) as history? because that's what’s happening.

Regards
-Nick

Caldric · Post by **Caldric** » 28 Nov 2002 10:53

Actually in real history there was a battle almost exactly like SPR. Go figure.

As far as kids go watching war movies, don't worry yourself to much, they like SPR and Band of Brothers ok but I doubt there is a rush to get the 60's and 70's war movies. If they do well if they learn anything then it is not for nothing.

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » 28 Nov 2002 10:57

Actually in real history there was a battle almost exactly like SPR. Go figure.

which battle was this? AFAIK, there were no SS Panzer formations anywhere near that sector that early.

cheers

Caldric · Post by **Caldric** » 28 Nov 2002 11:12

Was not in Normandy, and it was not the almighty over-rated SS. US 94th ID units against the 11th Panzer at TETTINGEN-BUTZDORF. Also was Panthers not Tigers, but the light infantry were able to destroy Panther tanks with satchel charges and Bazooka's and they held the little town or whatever it was, village etc.

Maple 01 · Post by **Maple 01** » 28 Nov 2002 12:21

Was not in Normandy, and it was not the almighty over-rated SS

While I agree that some SS units were over-rated don't tell the Canadians that the 9th SS were a push over!

Some were elite, some were average, some were just plain crap. But ask yourself why it was decided to show SS troops and Tiger tanks in SPR - exactly because of their reputation and to make the US forces look 'better' by being able to overcome them. Not quite as heroic defeating a lightly armed Ost battalion or a stomach regiment supported by a few Panzer IVs!

the light infantry were able to destroy Panther tanks with satchel charges and Bazookas

True, but you could also take out King Tigers with PIATs if you got close enough (about 2 foot away I head

(66cm for our continental chums) and I wouldn’t want to have to try that ether.

The above takes nothing away from the guys that did the job on Gold, Juno, Sward, Omaha Utah, Americans, Canadians, UK, Commonwealth, European Allies etc but when I see another 'we saved the world single handed myth' perpetrated as entertainment I feel it compromises history

Regards

-Nick

Caldric · Post by **Caldric** » 28 Nov 2002 20:27

You will never see me state that "We saved world".

SPR was not about saving the world, it was nothing about winning the war or anything like that. It was about risking everything for one man, have you never wondered why a rescue team would go into a very dangerous situation to save one man? Such as a mountain rescue where they risk the lives of the rescue team for one single climber that gets into trouble. Is the team worth the life of one man? Well obviously so since we have no shortage of rescue workers.

It was a story nothing more nothing less. Was it not the American sector that had the hardest time on the beach? Why is that taking away from the Canadians or whoever? Sorry I just did not see it.

Caldric · Post by **Caldric** » 28 Nov 2002 20:33

Patton is somewhat a Folk Hero in the US, most know everything about the man is not true, which Roberto goes out of his way with statistical numbers. I would never take a book written in the time when the history was being made as factual. Not today either. They are always self-promoting or out to make the person look bad.

Patton was a good general one that did things others did not, did things others said could not be done. Was he a man you would like to know and have talks with in the wee hours of the morning? No. Rarely do modest and humble men make good Generals. Bradley being an exception.

Maple 01 · Post by **Maple 01** » 28 Nov 2002 22:59

You will never see me state that "We saved world".

Apologies, that's not what I meant, what I was getting at is Hollywood gives that impression.

SPR was not about saving the world, it was nothing about winning the war or anything like that. It was about risking everything for one man

OK, fair enough, but the 'real' Ryan wasn't like that was it?

Was it not the American sector that had the hardest time on the beach?

True, several reasons have been given including lack of 'Hobart's funnies'
incomplete destruction of defences and plain bad luck

Why is that taking away from the Canadians or whoever?

No, I didn't mean it was, but you said the SS were over-rated, I agree in the case of many elements but the Canadians that faced the 9th and the Airborne boys at Arnheim against 9th and 10th had a very rough time

Regards

-Nick

Logan Hartke · Post by **Logan Hartke** » 28 Nov 2002 23:11

Maple 01 wrote:[
Was it not the American sector that had the hardest time on the beach?
True, several reasons have been given including lack of 'Hobart's funnies'
incomplete destruction of defences and plain bad luck

The sector was more heavily enforced by the Germans and the beach had more fearsome tidal conditions as well.

Logan Hartke

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » 29 Nov 2002 09:44

Patton was a good general one that did things others did not, did things others said could not be done. Was he a man you would like to know and have talks with in the wee hours of the morning? No. Rarely do modest and humble men make good Generals. Bradley being an exception.

I agree. Patton was a good general. It's just that Generals whose ego is that oversized and who so consciously builds a PR image tend to provoke a counterreaction from people who arent't taken in. Doesn't change the facts though. He may not have been everything his own myth claims, but he was a good general.

cheers

Wolf · Post by **Wolf** » 30 Nov 2002 01:01

George Patton was fair on a good day.
He had one of the strongest and best supplied armies ever fielded though.

Maple 01 · Post by **Maple 01** » 30 Nov 2002 09:19

Canadians that faced the 9th

Oops, that should read 12th

It's a great 'what if', what if you gave a group of major WW2 Axis and Allied generals the same number of troops, tanks and supplies and let them fight over neutral terrain in both attack and defence - that would show who was top dog!

Regards

-Nick