soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"David Thornley" wrote in message
news:pvYVhD.A.wWH.M6X9HB@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca...
> In article ,


>
> Bradley did have a chance to evaluate Patton, both as a subordinate
> and as a superior officer. The question is how good he was
> at evaluating Patton.

Well here is his evaluation of Patton,


Now let me quote Carlo D'Este's book: Decision In Normandy:
pages 404-405

"For weeks Patton* had been anxiously waiting in the wings for
an opportunity to redeem himself after the humiliation of his
relief in Sicily; he was determined not to bungle whatever chance
he got. Bradley* was not pleased to have him as a subordinate. The
campaign in Sicily, where Bradley* had been Patton's* subordinate,
had heightened the strong differences in their characters and
their approach to command. The volatile Patton* was given to
sudden fits of anger; his profane manner was often his undoing
and a source of embarrassment to both Eisenhower* and Bradley*,
as it was to Marshall*. Bradley* was repelled by Patton's* tendancy
to swear at his troops and could never understand his need for
crudeness. More importantly, Bradley* felt Patton* had not been
sufficiently familiar with the planning details for HUSKY, that he
had left too much to his deputy commander, and had not
involved himself deeply enough in the logistics and enemy situ-
ations. before Montgomery** as an ego trip at the expense of his troops.>
Though he remained a loyal subordinate, Bradley* had neverthe-
less grown more disenchanted with Patton*, and found
serving under him a great strain, so that by the time he was
appointed by Eisenhower* to command the First Army for the
invasion Bradley* was delighted to be out from under. 'I disliked
the way he worked, upset technical plans, interfered in my
orders. His stubbornness on amphibious operations and his
sickened me and soured me on
Patton'*(1). Above all else, two events that did most to sour Bradley*
on Patton* occured on 3 August 1943 and again on 10 August,
when the furious Seventh Army Commander slapped a soldier
thought to be malingering in separate incidents at two field
hospitals. For a disgusted Bradley,* this was the last straw.
COBRA admittedly made an awkward situation for both men,
with the one-time superior now the subordinate, but although
their journey together to the end of the war was not always
without difficulty, Bradley* was soon to have ample reason to be
pleased with Patton's* presence in Normandy. Patton* had already
told Bradley;*
'I must get in and do something spectacularly
successful if I am to make good'(2)

Just how spectacularly
success-
ful Patton would be, even he could not perceive at that moment."

(1) Hansen* Papers, US Army Military Institute
(2) Hansen* Diaries, 27 July 1944




* Not British or Commonwealth.
** British or Commonwealth.

>
> An example is Patton sending 6th Armored Division through Brittany
> with the orders "Get Brest".

Very John Wayne like!


>
>>See my post 29/03/2008 6:19PM.
>>I will repost it if you can't find it.
>>
> Google Groups is my friend.

Above is the quote from Decision In Normandy by Carlo D'Este,
exactly as I posted it, with reference to that self same book.



>
> What it says, essentially, is that Bradley and Patton did not get
> along.

It doesn't say that.

> It gives some reasons Bradley gave for not approving of
> Patton, and then suggests Patton's great successes to come.

So you did read my cite, and ignored the top of the
paragraph where I submitted the name of the
book and the author.

Was his then future success any greater than any other US Army general's
of did he just have the better PR people?




> Frankly, I don't know why you quoted it, unless you wanted to
> hammer in Bradley's opinion of Patton.

Bradley's opinion of Patton came immediately to hand,
and as he served under and over Patton, so who better to
quote.


> As I said, I don't particularly agree with Bradley's assessment.
> It isn't that I don't understand what Bradley thought, it's that
> I disagree with it. If you want to argue against Patton, please
> do so. Don't just go into detail about what one specific person
> thought about him and think that will accomplish anything.

I did argue against Patton, and quoted instances and opinions
of him by superiors and subordinates. True that does
colour *my* opinion, but it only re-inforces it.