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.
planet x
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 05:16
Location: south korea

General Patton had a bad opinion of Russians

Post by planet x » 23 Nov 2002 10:13

General Patton's Quotes

RUSSIA AND RUSSIANS

We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore , their
gasoline and ammunition supplies are low.I've seen their miserable
supply trains;mostly wagons draw by beaten up old hoses or oxen.
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. Someday we
will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six
million lives.


One form of securing testimony used by the Russians is to hang
a man by his wrists with bandages so they will not cut or marks
will be left. Then, two small incisions made into the lower abdomen to
allow a portion of the intestines to hang out. After the man has taken
all that he can stand without dying. He is cut down , the incisions are
sewn up, and he is restored to health with the promise that the operation
will not be repeated If he does as he is told.

I believe that by taking a strong attitude the Russians,they will back down
. We have already yielded too much to their mongolian nature.

There are all kins of low class slime who are trying and will continue
to try to wreck this country from the inside. Most of them don't know it.
but they are actually working for the Russians. Some of them do know it,
though. It doesn't matter whether they call themselves communists,
socialists, or just plain liberals. That is what thay are doing.

The Russians are mongols. They are Slavs and a lot of them used to be
ruled by ancient Byzantium. From Genghis Kahn to Stalin. they have
not changed. They never will and we will never learn, at least , not until
it is too late.

Poland is under Russian domination ,so is Hungary,so is Czechoslovakia, and so is Yugoslavia ;and we sit happily by and think that everybody loves us.

We have destroyed what could have been a good race of people and
we are about to replace them with mongolian savages and all of Europe
with communism

General Anders of the Polish 2 corps told me that if his corps got between a German Army and a Russian Army he would have trouble deciding which direction to fight.

The one thing which I could not say then , and cannot yet say ,is that
my chief interest in establishing order in Germany was to prevent Germany from going communist. I am afraid that our foolish and utterly
stupid policy regard to Germany will certainly cause them to join the Russians and there by insure communistic state thrughout western europe


If it should be necessary for us fight the russians.the sooner we do it,
the better.

We could have arrived sooner but for the fact if one flies over Russian occupied territory they shoot at you .Nice friends.

If we have to fight them , now is the time,From now on , we will get
weaker and they will get stronger.

The difficulty in understanding the Russians we do not take cognizance
of the fact he is not a European, but an asiatic therefore thinks deviously.
We can no more understand a Russian than Chinese or a Jepanese.
From what I have seen of them I have no particular desire to understand
them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them.
In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russians have
no regard for human life and they are all out son of bitches,barbarians
and chronic drunks.

It is said that for the first week after the Russians took berlin ,all woman
who ran were shot and those who did not were raped.I could have taken
Berlin if I had been allowed.

The Russians have a lot of new heavy tanks of which they are very proud.
The Marshall asked me how I like them . I said that I did not and we had
quite an argument. Apparently I am the first person ever to disagree with him.

At the dinner I stated that in my opinion Germany was so completely blacked out that so far as military resistance was concerned, they were
not a menace and that what we had to look out for was Russia. This caused a considerable furor.

I believe that Germany should not be destroyed ,but rather should be
rebuilt as a buffer against the real danger, which is russia and it's bolshevism.

Russia knows what it wants. World domination .And she is laying her plans
accordingly. We, on the other hand, and England, and france to a lesser extent. don't know what we want and get less than nothing as the result.

Let's keep our boots polished bayonets sharpened,and present a picture
of force and strength to the Russians. This is the only language that they understand and respect. If you fail to do this , then I would like to say that we have had a victory over the Germans, and have disarmed them,but we have lost the war.

I have never seen any army at any time,including the German Imperial Army of 1912,as severe discipline as exist in the Russian Army. The officers , with few exceptions, give the appearance of resently civilized mongolian bandits The man passed in review with a very good imitation
of the goose step . They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization.

varjag
In memoriam
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Post by varjag » 23 Nov 2002 12:48

George Patton DID indeed have a BAD opinion of the Russians. He wasn't exactly flattering about Pres. Roosevelt, George Marshall, Eisenhower,Montgomery, Mark Clark, Admiral King, Germans, Italians, French in general - in fact, WHO did Patton approve of. Of course except himself?
Apart from that - I generally agree with his opinion of the Russians. Sorry- that should be Soviets.

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

Post by Maple 01 » 23 Nov 2002 18:19

George Patton DID indeed have a BAD opinion of the Russians. He wasn't exactly flattering about Pres. Roosevelt, George Marshall, Eisenhower,Montgomery, Mark Clark, Admiral King, Germans, Italians, French in general - in fact, WHO did Patton approve of. Of course except himself?
With you there varjag, was there ever a General more in love with himself? Made that ace self-publicist Monty look positively media shy!

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

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 23 Nov 2002 23:45

if this was the best Americna General then I feel trully sory for the American army. weird why these ravings were not publsihed in USSR - would have made nice propoganda.... I mean the cahp could have been chief writer for Gobels.

User avatar
David C. Clarke
In memoriam
Posts: 11368
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:17
Location: U.S. of A.

Post by David C. Clarke » 24 Nov 2002 01:01

Hey Oleg, Patton was a notorious racist and right-winger. It's fair to say that, within the U.S. Army his views were regarded as extremist fringe
thinking.
Better to remember the opinion Eisenhower expressed on his flight to Moscow immediately after the war. In his memoirs he noted at how he didn't see an intact village or town the entire trip.
Best Regards, David

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

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 24 Nov 2002 01:50

David C. Clarke wrote:Hey Oleg, Patton was a notorious racist and right-winger. It's fair to say that, within the U.S. Army his views were regarded as extremist fringe
thinking.
Better to remember the opinion Eisenhower expressed on his flight to Moscow immediately after the war. In his memoirs he noted at how he didn't see an intact village or town the entire trip.
Best Regards, David
oh -did not know that - sorry

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

Post by Caldric » 24 Nov 2002 11:21

Well thankfully Political Correctness did not rule the day in WWII. Patton was a fine field commander and one of the best the allies had in ETO, on all fronts including the Eastern. His 3rd Army was excellent.

He hated Communism and the Bolsheviks as did most well to do Westerners, cannot say I blame them either considering the track record of Stalinist USSR. He was also a warmonger.

He did not like politics either, most especially when they interfered with the battlefield.

And who wasn't racist in 1940's.

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

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 24 Nov 2002 11:25

Caldric wrote:Well thankfully Political Correctness did not rule the day in WWII. Patton was a fine field commander and one of the best the allies had in ETO, on all fronts including the Eastern. His 3rd Army was excellent.

He hated Communism and the Bolsheviks as did most well to do Westerners, cannot say I blame them either considering the track record of Stalinist USSR. He was also a warmonger.

He did not like politics either, most especially when they interfered with the battlefield.

And who wasn't racist in 1940's.
it seems to me that he hated Russians not Bolsheviks. And who was not Racist is not an excuse. Consider for instance ethnic make up of Soviet commanders -hard to be a racist is not it
The Russians are mongols.

The difficulty in understanding the Russians we do not take cognizance
of the fact he is not a European, but an asiatic therefore thinks deviously.
We can no more understand a Russian than Chinese or a Jepanese.
From what I have seen of them I have no particular desire to understand
them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them.
In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russians have
no regard for human life and they are all out son of bitches,barbarians
and chronic drunks.
lets comapre - shall we?


Colonel-General Hoepner 5.2.41

The war against the Soviet Union is an essential component of the German people's struggle for existence. It is the old struggle of

the Germans against the Slavs, the defense of European culture against the Muscovite-Asiatic flood, the warding off of Jewish Bolshevism. This struggle must have as its aim the demolition of present Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity. Both the planning and the execution of every battle must be dictated by an iron will to bring about a merciless, total annihilation of the enemy. Particularly no mercy should be shown toward the carriers of the present Russian-Bolshevik system.

well what do you know... he would fit nicely.
Last edited by Oleg Grigoryev on 24 Nov 2002 11:37, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Caldric » 24 Nov 2002 11:31

oleg wrote:
Caldric wrote:Well thankfully Political Correctness did not rule the day in WWII. Patton was a fine field commander and one of the best the allies had in ETO, on all fronts including the Eastern. His 3rd Army was excellent.

He hated Communism and the Bolsheviks as did most well to do Westerners, cannot say I blame them either considering the track record of Stalinist USSR. He was also a warmonger.

He did not like politics either, most especially when they interfered with the battlefield.

And who wasn't racist in 1940's.
it seems to me that he hated Russians not Bolsheviks. And who was not Racist is not an excuse. Consider for instance ethnic make up of Soviet commanders -hard to be a racist is not it
No he hated Communist, read his quotes and look how many times he brings up the subject. Also most US GI's considered the Soviets just plain Russians, but they were referring to the USSR, all the way until the death of the USSR the majority of US servicemen would say Russian or Ruski etc.

At any rate he was not in a position to make any changes and I doubt the Soviet Commanders had any love for the Western Commanders either.

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

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 24 Nov 2002 11:40

Caldric wrote:
oleg wrote:
Caldric wrote:Well thankfully Political Correctness did not rule the day in WWII. Patton was a fine field commander and one of the best the allies had in ETO, on all fronts including the Eastern. His 3rd Army was excellent.

He hated Communism and the Bolsheviks as did most well to do Westerners, cannot say I blame them either considering the track record of Stalinist USSR. He was also a warmonger.

He did not like politics either, most especially when they interfered with the battlefield.

And who wasn't racist in 1940's.
it seems to me that he hated Russians not Bolsheviks. And who was not Racist is not an excuse. Consider for instance ethnic make up of Soviet commanders -hard to be a racist is not it
No he hated Communist, read his quotes and look how many times he brings up the subject. Also most US GI's considered the Soviets just plain Russians, but they were referring to the USSR, all the way until the death of the USSR the majority of US servicemen would say Russian or Ruski etc.

At any rate he was not in a position to make any changes and I doubt the Soviet Commanders had any love for the Western Commanders either.
I did see the edited message. as for Soviet commanders Konev wrote favorably of Bredley. That is the only one I can think off

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

Post by Maple 01 » 24 Nov 2002 12:24

At any rate he was not in a position to make any changes and I doubt the Soviet Commanders had any love for the Western Commanders either
I think any commander who wanted to keep the fighting going to serve his own twisted view of an 'Ally' he didn't approve of should have been withdrawn from his command immediately.
I'll say this ;the Third Army alone with very little help and with
damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six
weeks.
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?

Has everyone forgotten the true feelings of the average 'grunt' or PBI at the end of the war? Did they want to take up arms again against ordinary men like themselves? Or were solders of America, BC and Soviet Union just glad to be alive and wanting to go home? Remember the rhetoric of the Cold War hadn’t happened yet. (If anyone’s interested I’m one of the ‘Cold War’ guys who were convinced the ‘Russians’ where ‘the bad guys’ at the time – its only through forums like this and the other history one that we find the ‘guys on the other side’ weren’t that different – not talking about the politicos)

It's easy sitting in the comfort of our 21 century lives to play armchair general, but to attack the Soviets in 1945 - after everyone on this list admits the Soviets did the majority of the fighting in WW2 and therefore must be the most battle hardened force- in an attempt to save Eastern Europe, noble as the cause might have been it wouldn't have been worth the millions of casualties - and don't even think about using 'but we had the bomb' line.

Like I say, its just my opinion

Regards

-Nick

varjag
In memoriam
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Post by varjag » 24 Nov 2002 13:55

Racist Redneck Patton! in our PC times - Oouch!
But he seems to have been one of the FEW allied generals, for whom the seasoned German panzer-leaders (without many Panzers...) had a healthy respect. Most of 'the others' were 'so predictable.' Patton wasn't - he thought like they would have thought - given enough Panzers. Or Shermans - as it be.

User avatar
David C. Clarke
In memoriam
Posts: 11368
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:17
Location: U.S. of A.

Post by David C. Clarke » 24 Nov 2002 16:54

Well, I knew I'd take some heat from you non-PC guys, but Patton WAS a racist and did express then-common stereotypes about various ethnicities.
I didn't say he wasn't a good field commander, even the despised minorities who fought under him believed he was. But he was also vain, arrogant, and a publicity-hound, IMHO.
It's a pity that much of what we know about him personally comes from his posthumously published autobiography. But I agree with anyone who reminds us that his idea of fighting the Russians after the end of WWII was so out of sync with the political and military leadership of the U.S. Army and the people of the U.S. in general, that it relegates him to the fringes of (that's the far right-wing fringes guys!) American politics and thought in 1945.
Best Regards, David

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

Post by Caldric » 24 Nov 2002 19:39

Maple 01 wrote:
At any rate he was not in a position to make any changes and I doubt the Soviet Commanders had any love for the Western Commanders either
I think any commander who wanted to keep the fighting going to serve his own twisted view of an 'Ally' he didn't approve of should have been withdrawn from his command immediately.
I'll say this ;the Third Army alone with very little help and with
damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six
weeks.
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?

Has everyone forgotten the true feelings of the average 'grunt' or PBI at the end of the war? Did they want to take up arms again against ordinary men like themselves? Or were solders of America, BC and Soviet Union just glad to be alive and wanting to go home? Remember the rhetoric of the Cold War hadn’t happened yet. (If anyone’s interested I’m one of the ‘Cold War’ guys who were convinced the ‘Russians’ where ‘the bad guys’ at the time – its only through forums like this and the other history one that we find the ‘guys on the other side’ weren’t that different – not talking about the politicos)

It's easy sitting in the comfort of our 21 century lives to play armchair general, but to attack the Soviets in 1945 - after everyone on this list admits the Soviets did the majority of the fighting in WW2 and therefore must be the most battle hardened force- in an attempt to save Eastern Europe, noble as the cause might have been it wouldn't have been worth the millions of casualties - and don't even think about using 'but we had the bomb' line.

Like I say, its just my opinion

Regards

-Nick
What are you going on about? To start with I did not see anyone say that he should attack the Soviets. Your honorable but a bit naive thinking that he should remove himself from command is not the way the world worked back then.

And no sir the Soviets did the majority of fighting on the Eastern front against Germans. 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.

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

Post by Maple 01 » 24 Nov 2002 20:01

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

Return to “USA 1919-1945”