I guess part of the problem of sub-par Allied generals is that we all neglected our militaries following WW1. And therefore we reaped what we had sown. Canada had an army of 4000 prior to WW2 and the other services were just as minuscule. A navy of six destroyers and I don't have any idea how large the air force was. Thus there wasn't really anyone to choose from and we took it on the chin until the end of 1942 as a result. Maybe a bit too simplified but not by a large amount. From what I've read recently, the Germans didn't really think about Patton much at all until he appeared at the head of Third Army in August 1944. He was just another Allied general who held no distinguished reputation with them. His mystique was largely created after the war, and mostly by the film "Patton." I really like it as a film. The cinematography, dialogue and acting were truly very good.
It is always a huge treat to hear Woody and Kevin speak---they seem to enjoy each other immensely as well! I concur with the point that both made here that no matter how long they talk, most of us will still cling grimly to our opinions about most of the main actors from the War. But one thing we can be eternally grateful to this generation of historians for is their unending efforts to make sure that when we cling to our opinions about these often great, but nearly always flawed, leaders is that we must do so armed with the very best information available! Kudos to Kevin for digging even further into the Patton legend to make sure that love him or hate him, we all will now be better able to judge him.
Those Pistols were made at Colt Manufacturing. I worked for an electrical contractor and we had a lighting conversion project for Colt and met the son of the man who had made those pistols and there are 2 identical ones in their history of Colt museum.
You talk about actors coloring how we perceive military figures. In The Longest Day, the actor, Richard Todd, who portrayed Major Howard was actually there at D-Day, with his parachute regiment landing near the bridges (for some value of "near" of course). He actually met Howard there to help fend off counter attacks and a had a different actor portraying himself in the movie!
Thanks Guys....this was about 1,000 times more informative, than the last doco on Patton I watched on the MSM....[I am 63 saw Patton in 1970 in Brisbane and have read Carlo De Este and Bloom whatshisname along with a few others]....I have always thought TF Baum was a mission to save his S-I-L....despite all that, I love the old Bastard.
Great talk Paul and Kevin. Thoroughly enjoyed it. This channel is a great service for posterity. As the present generation looks more towards quick fix history rather than the long way around, which the likes of me and you took, these discussions will serve the future well. Looking forward to reading the book. Cheers!!
I really liked the discussion -- I loved Kevin's WAR AS HE SAW IT and just had to get a sneak peek on his next volumes. I'm an unabashed Patton fan, and very well-read on all the controversies. I enjoyed both the discussion and the live chat. Paul and Kevin navigated intricately around the Patton mystique, and you could tell from the live chat that the professionalism of the two historians on screen has permeated the entire audience by on osmosis. Great topic, excellent treatment, and the second half of the discussion was especially insightful.
Read Patton's General Orders. He told his troops that when under artillery fire to always advance into it. If you stay where you are they are going to pound you to ribbons. If you retreat or move laterally the fire will just follow you. The fact that you are zeroed in proves you are under observation. By advancing you present a dilemma to the gunners. They are just as reluctant to reduce range and engage their own troops. It is the best option. When advancing bring any cover you might use if you were defending under fire. Bullets are cheap, men aren't. That is just a sample. The man was a genius.
@@saxonwarrior3736 You are certainly welcome to your opinion. He was, no question, a complicated man. My father was in 3rd Army under him and his opinion from the grunt level was that they all hated him. However, they were very proud of themselves and what they accomplished. They did things nobody else had ever done mostly because Patton knew how to motivate men. The drive across France, the Falise pocket, the Bulge, he trained them he drove them, and was pretty successful. Nobody had ever taken an Army involved in an attack, turned it 90 degrees, and attacked in a different direction in the dead of winter to relieve Bastone. He was by all accounts an egotistical jerk but he got results. I can't think of another American General that was his equal. Overrated? It's hard to say because he never had to lead a retreat. He certinally made some mistakes but nothing compared to Market Garden.
@@paulmazan4909 Metz cost a lot more than MG..MG was well planned by Brereton and Williams, sadly Gavin messed it up by not taking the Waal bridge on landing and he never relived the bulge, 24hrs late troops had been resupplied by air enemy in retreat.
@@johndawes9337 Hi, Metz was a maze of fixed fortresses with interlocking fields for fire. That hardly compares to a series of bridges, miles apart, I without I supporting positions so it shouldn't be surprising that Metz we a very tough nut. Monte suppo Irters always point out that Monty didn't plan the operation and didn't think it a very good plan. That may be true, but Monte was in charge. He was the only one that could have called the operation off and if he truly thought it a bad plan he should have. The man in command gets the glory when he succeeds and shares the blame when a plan fails.
While watching this episode from last year it occurred to me that with General Patton and many American Generals there was a sort of protectionism that surrounded them. When I was in the US Army I witnessed this phenomena which covered the questionable actions or reputations of our officers-especially West Point trained officers. There was a sort of "good 'ole boys club" that protected them from their mistakes. We called it the West Point Protection Club (WPPC) and it was a factor in how those officers were treated as opposed to Officer Candidate School officers when being disciplined. I think Kevin is uncovering something of this happening during the war. (IMHO)
Very, very belated praise as I've only just now seen this EXCELLENT! analysis of Patton......as always Woody Wow, what great work and what a great choice of guest presenter!
Really good show. I loved all the stories and clarifications of how some events actually took place. Nothing is better then learning new information that changes the accepted view of events. Constantly learning on this channel and the "What If" is always a a fun exercise.
Prior to operation Torch Patton was among several high ranking Americans discussing situations with President Roosevelt (e.g. Marshall, King, Leahy etc.). Patton was a ball of nerves mostly due to Roosevelt`s glacial pace to hashing a plan or problem. Toward the end of the meeting in the small white house room Patton (who had said next to nothing) blurts out "I will return from the beach a victor or a corpse" to which Roosevelt cooked his head clinching his cigarette holder in his nicotine stained teeth and replied "of course you will".
Fantastic episode. Really enjoyed it. I've learned alot more about Patton the loudmouth. Never been a fan of blowhorns, but I can't dispute the good he achieved in the war. And he allows me to live a life in peace (so far). So no complaints. Great show!
What happens in the movies and in the media are not real. Weather you like Patton or not the allies were lucky to have him 👍 I think Patton was just a larger than life character outside the normal of everyone else back than and people cannot understand it. But in simple terms Patton was everything everyone is capable of he just was not afraid to show it.
Wonderful discussion again. Thanks for all of this. I noticed a familiar beer can on the top shelf. It’s the only other time I have seen it on line. I have it on a shelf at home as well. Doh!
......great work....keep it up.Two of my great-uncles served under that great & unique individual...... My take on him is that one does not not achieve "greatness" by being a "nice guy"...... although Omar Bradley may prove me wrong...
I am ever greatful for your huge undertaking. I would especially be interested in the American officer failures like Lucas and Fredendal. Knowing they were judged best by Marshal and definitely well trained and prepared for leadership I suspect one would learn a lot by a an analysis of what happened. I was fortunate enough to read half of Patton’s report on the African campaign showing how thorough and astute he was from spanners to grand strategy. I only managed a bit of the movie, grotesque and cartoonish compared to the real man. Thank you so much again for your format of giving experts a voice including yourself
Patton the Military historian knew very well that after America's Declaration of Independence, Morocco was the very first country to acknowledge America as an Independent Nation. Of course N. Africa is absolutely ate up with military history and epic battles, it just fed his appetite. Stepping ashore in Morocco in the form of a Battle invasion was simply fulfilling destiny for himself
Re the amphibious landings on the North shore of Sicily. Churchill had similar ideas for overcoming strong points along the north shore, described, or perhaps mentioned or commented on in his post war multi volume memoir/history of WW2; Churchill called them Cats Claw tactics. Unlike the US political leadership, perhaps because of their geographic remoteness, compared to English proximity, Churchill had occasional suggestions for tactical maneuvers at levels of command far below his station.
1.03: yea ok so sat here comfortably doing my best military General impression: This is a tactical situation even though the Voltage the monolithic momentum I will call Strategic follows swiftly.. so the man is correct.. Patton understood this..
The Military Advisor for the Patton movie was Omar Bradley and he hated both Monty and Patton because they overshadowed him. This explains why the movie shows both men in the worst possible light, it was Bradley's revenge. The Patton movie is largely fiction, but as it has been passed on to the public as historical fact. Sadly few historians research the movie for authenticity.
Yes, no excuse for adults not to be able to record sound, like someone yelling and someone whispering. and if you fail during the live, fix it before posting.
I was never a great Patton fan because of his backwards (even for the times) prejudices. I believe, however, that he was exactly the right person for the pursuit across France and the relief of Bastogne. Likewise I was never a fan of Montgomery but he was the right person for Alamein.
19.40: lolol well I don't think I prefer any of those 2. Just in terms of the way they came across as personalities, but I grew up with the war stories that favored both and ran with it. Patton was a go get em and so was Monty in my head.
I agree he could be all of those things, but he could also be foolish, stubborn and reckless. He is a real enigma. There are some things he did that were brilliant and others that were terrible
That would be NO Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and avoided Military Service in Vietnam. So he had his chance,got scarce and counted his cash. While actual men marched off to war
great dominion i disagree-night airborne operations in Normandy were on balance the most successful in the war-yes the American Australian drop at Nadzap was very successful(there was two 25 pdr crews who jumped with the yanks-they forgot a vital spanner-duly flown up from Moresby) and the drop at Salerno really helped turn the tide of the battle on the beach but night drops emphasized the surprise element and wide distribution of the Americans on the Cotentin peninsula helped to confuse the enemy
every time there is action taken in WW2 by any side without proper intel even eye in the sky would have prevented carnage... one little spotter plane with a good radio connection would have given more accurate ship to shore barrage... baffling!!??
My father in law was a truck mounted infantry in the Third Armor, he enlisted early and turned 18 years old moving north to relieve Bastogne. He thought Patton was a glory hound at the expense of infantrymen. Our blood and our guts he said.
Thanks-- Richard used talk about how their trucks would drop them off by the roadside; leave them to walk the trucks went to the fuel dump, went forward, fueled the tanks and then had to find the right troops walking alongside the road and get them to their bivouac. Cold, Grey, and freezing mud.
It was a war, and based on results, He was the best. Infants (young children) go to the Infantry. That is why it is called that. My father was a Ensign in that war, and did not talk shit about people whom were successful.
He was killed! Those 3 soldiers in the truck were parked on the side of the road were waiting for Patton's party to come up that road. Someone in high-command knew that he was going hunting that day & what road he would be taking. The driver of the truck purposely crossed over the yellow line and rammed Patton's Cadillac head-on and accelerating. Patton's driver tried to avoid the truck at the last second & was hit anyway. Patton's driver immediately got out and repremanded the soldier who was driving & saw that he was drunk! Their excuse was that they were returning the truck to a supply depot in the immediate area. The driver of the truck & the two other soldiers disappeared and no attempts were made by the authorities to question them or hunt them down. See "Killing Patton," written by Martin Dugard & Bill O'Reilly. I think that if Patton got back to America, ran for president, and won; he would have started a war with Russia. There were previous attempts on Patton's life, all documented in the book.
@@patrickcalabro8718 if they did dissapear it was because it was their ass if caught it doesn't mean there was collusion. You are going to have to provide a legitimate source where Army Command didn't look for those soldiers. Perhaps they couldn't find them.many GIs were going home and replacement troops coming in
I am going to buy the book if only to try to answer my unanswered question. Why was Patton such a successful General? (Insert favourite simplistic myth here) :)
