Eisenhower and Patton: Their Motives, and Their Rewards

[PoliticalChic]

He saw things in Eisenhower that inspired trust....most especially, the unhesitating ability....and desire.... to follow orders.

That's the nature of an Army, yep.

To greater and lesser degrees.


1. This was General George S. Patton:
Shortly after the conquest of Trier on March 1, Patton received a message from Allied headquarters.
"Bypass Trier. It will take four divisions to capture it," read the order.
"Have taken Trier with two divisions," an acerbic Patton responded. "What do you want me to do? Give it back?"

Patton's barbed sense of humor is not accidental. He is weary of the ineffectual leadership of General Eisenhower, who he believes consistently sabotages his success. He feels the same way about Omar Bradley, his immediate superior. "
"Killing Patton THE STRANGE DEATH OF WORLD WAR II S MOST AUDACIOUS GENERAL," byBill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard, p. 200


He showed his military genius and success on the battlefield, but could not defeat the will of the triumvirate, who played Brutus, Cassius and Casca to Patton's Julius Caesar.

 

[regent]

Patton stunned Zhukov into silence during their one and only meeting during a parade of Soviet hardware. Zhukov was bragging that a Soviet tank could lob a shell 7 miles and Patton responded he would have his tankers tried for cowardice if they opened fired before they closed in to less than 700 yards.

So what would have been safer for the American tankers, closing to less than 700 yards or lobbing a shell seven miles? Was that more Patton showboating indicating how brave he was?

He was, far and away, the best field commander in any army in all of WWII.
He stunned the great Zhukov into silence

So that's what makes the best field commander in any army, stunning the great Zhukov into silence? Wonder what Zhukov thought when Patton did his "see how brave I am," thing to Zhukov, It actually sounds child-like today. I hope Patton didn't show Zhukov his pistols, and remark what he'd do if a German tried to take them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"December 27, 1944

George Patton walks to the front of a small
Catholic chapel and drops to his knees in prayer.


"Sir, this is Patton again," he begins with an air of contrition. "And I beg to report complete progress. Sir, it seems to me that You have been much better informed about the situation than I was, because it was that awful weather which I cursed You so much which made it possible for the German army to commit suicide. That, Sir, was a brilliant military move, and I bow humbly to Your supreme genius."


The German advance stalled on Christmas Eve 1944. Basically, the Germans overran their supply lines. And without ammunition and gasoline, they were unable to wage an offensive campaign. The continued progress of Patton and his Third Army eventually spelled doom for Operation Watch on the Rhine.

By January 25, 1945, the Germans had retreated back to the same positions they had held at the start of the offensive six weeks earlier. Thus ended the last great German attack on the Western Front.


"The relief of Bastogne is the most brilliant operation we have thus far performed, and is in my opinion the outstanding achievement of this war," Patton writes home to his wife, Beatrice. "
Patton's conversation with God is from
"Killing Patton :THE STRANGE DEATH OF WORLD WAR II S
MOST AUDACIOUS GENERAL," by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard


ThroughTheMistsofChestnutHill: General George Patton's Prayer to God

http://www.87thinfantrydivision.com/Downloads/GAN-Archives/PDFs/1995-2-1.pdf


There are several lessons in this, for you, reggie.

1. Notice the humility.


2.You wanted to know about his prowess: "...most brilliant operation we have thus far performed,.."

3. And most important, the reason that he....unlike Franklin Roosevelt.....could never accept communism.....he worshiped God.

 

[regent]

So it was God that did it all, and Patton took the credit. Speaking of credit was anyone else involved besides God and Patton?

 

[Old Rocks]

Strange as it is, the remarkable ability as a general isn't what pushes one to the top in the armed forces. Sometimes, it becomes secondary to.....other things. Why would George Patton, who believed himself the reincarnation of a Roman legionnaire, not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history?




4. "June 6, 1944 General Omar Bradley (1893-1981) led the First Army of the United States in the famous D-Day landing on the beaches of Normandy. Interestingly, Bradley was the understudy of another man, General George S. Patton Jr. (1885-1945). How did Bradley overtake his mentor? What caused the Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1979) to give the job to Bradley when Patton had helped lead the Allies to victory in Sicily only a short time before? During the 1943 invasion, Bradley had served under Patton, now Bradley was Patton's commanding officer.

General Patton was an aggressive general; his tactics were unorthodox, but successful. Why would he not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history? Why would he be used as a decoy rather than be on the front lines of Normandy? Was this because of the rocky relationship he had with the Allied Commander, General Eisenhower? How did Patton view Eisenhower and how did Eisenhower view Patton?" Military History Online



What sort of machinations were behind the advancement of Eisenhower over Patton?


Guess who hated Patton, and vice versa...Hint: he slaughtered millions of his own citizens.

Good guess!


And Franklin Roosevelt bowed to the every desire and wish of Joseph Stalin.

Eisenhower was agreeable.....Patton very much the opposite.

Rattle on all you want. Eisenhower will be remembered in history as a great leader in war and peace. Patton as a brilliant but deeply flawed general. And FDR will be remembered as one of the great Presidents. And all your silly flapyapping won't change that one whit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Strange as it is, the remarkable ability as a general isn't what pushes one to the top in the armed forces. Sometimes, it becomes secondary to.....other things. Why would George Patton, who believed himself the reincarnation of a Roman legionnaire, not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history?




4. "June 6, 1944 General Omar Bradley (1893-1981) led the First Army of the United States in the famous D-Day landing on the beaches of Normandy. Interestingly, Bradley was the understudy of another man, General George S. Patton Jr. (1885-1945). How did Bradley overtake his mentor? What caused the Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1979) to give the job to Bradley when Patton had helped lead the Allies to victory in Sicily only a short time before? During the 1943 invasion, Bradley had served under Patton, now Bradley was Patton's commanding officer.

General Patton was an aggressive general; his tactics were unorthodox, but successful. Why would he not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history? Why would he be used as a decoy rather than be on the front lines of Normandy? Was this because of the rocky relationship he had with the Allied Commander, General Eisenhower? How did Patton view Eisenhower and how did Eisenhower view Patton?" Military History Online



What sort of machinations were behind the advancement of Eisenhower over Patton?


Guess who hated Patton, and vice versa...Hint: he slaughtered millions of his own citizens.

Good guess!


And Franklin Roosevelt bowed to the every desire and wish of Joseph Stalin.

Eisenhower was agreeable.....Patton very much the opposite.

Rattle on all you want. Eisenhower will be remembered in history as a great leader in war and peace. Patton as a brilliant but deeply flawed general. And FDR will be remembered as one of the great Presidents. And all your silly flapyapping won't change that one whit.

For purposes of clarity,....
Neither 'Rattle; on nor 'flapyapping' have any application to my posts which are cogent, well supported, documented, sourced, and linked......always.

I notice that you are trying....ineffectively....to make some vague statement about the two general.....yet have said nothing about the clear distinctions that I spotlighted.

Well....we each work up to our ability level.

 

[regent]

The generals Ike and Patton just seemed to have different objectives during the war.
Patton's objective seems to have been to make Patton a two-gun carrying hero, afraid of nothing and be like the great generals in history books. Ike's objective seems to be to make this invasion work using our allies and with as few Americans lives lost as possible. Patton's objectives were pretty much spelled out in song and dance, and Ike's in helping to defeat Germany.

 

[whitehall]

In order to examine the careers of Ike and Patton you have to factor in George Marshall. Marshall had little or no combat experience and when he was finally given a command late in his career he screwed it up to the point that an elite Army regiment went to hell. He caught the eye of FDR while the Army was supervising civilian workers and for some unknown reason jumped over more qualified officers to become COS. Marshall became Ike's and Patton's boss at the stroke of a pen. A Soldier's life was cheap during WW2 and the Normandy invasion, a direct assault on an impregnable fortress, was the failed strategy that every rookie officer was taught never to attempt. Marshall authorized the invasion and Ike claimed that he would use (kill?) as many Troops as it took to achieve a foothold in France. The much touted (by historians) initial invasion went rather well with only a couple of thousand killed on the beach but the breakout (that historians tend to ignore) was a freaking nightmare. Hard charging Patton came to the rescue of Ike's quagmire and may have been deemed as a non team player so the media was called in to take him down a bit while Ike went on to more carnage.