soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article ,
Robert Sveinson wrote:
>"David Thornley" wrote in message
>news:pvYVhD.A.wWH.M6X9HB@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca...
>
>Well here is his evaluation of Patton,
>
You posted that already. That is what Bradley thought about
Patton. We already know that.

>> An example is Patton sending 6th Armored Division through Brittany
>> with the orders "Get Brest".
>
>Very John Wayne like!
>
Actually, very mission-order-like. Patton told his subordinates
what he wanted done, and gave them a lot of freedom in how to
do it.

My point was that it had a chance if Bradley had not stopped
Sixth Armored Division.

>Above is the quote from Decision In Normandy by Carlo D'Este,
>exactly as I posted it, with reference to that self same book.
>
Right. I know. What I don't know is why you reposted it.

>> What it says, essentially, is that Bradley and Patton did not get
>> along.
>
>It doesn't say that.
>
Right. It does.

>> 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.
>
I've read the book.

So, I suppose, if I wanted to be pedantic I could say that the
quote told us what D'Este thought Bradley thought about Patton.
Which is no surprise.

It still comes down to what Bradley thought about Patton, and while
that is of interest there are a whole lot of other perspectives.

>Was his then future success any greater than any other US Army general's
>of did he just have the better PR people?
>
His future success was greater than lots of other people. He was vital
in the breakout and pursuit, very impressive in changing facing for
the Ardennes offensive, and had a lot of other successes.

He wasn't perfect, but, then, who was?

>> 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.
>
Again, that's precisely one point of view, no matter how many
authors you cite about Bradley's opinion, or how often you repost
the same thing.

There are quite a few other opinions of Patton.

If you like D'Este, and want to know what he thought about Patton,
I'd suggest the book D'Este wrote about him: "A Genius For War".
You can probably get an idea of D'Este's opinion from the title,
which means I'm rather puzzled when you cite his book attempting
to support an unfavorable opinion of Patton.

>> 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.

I question the plurals you're using.

You have pointed out that Bradley did not have a good opinion of
Patton at one point. What other superiors? Which subordinates
(unless you're double-counting Bradley?) What incidents, aside
from what you picked out as probably his worst moment as a commander?

What is your opinion about Patton's role in the setup of the Falaise
pocket? The pursuit across France? His handling of Third Army during
the Ardennes Offensive? The Saar-Palatinate campaign? Some of that,
in my opinion, was inspired generalship.



--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-