The Foresight of Patton

For 20 years Robert Orlando has brought his cinematic vision to the screen, beginning with his mesmerizing 1988 film See Her Run, going on to represent New York University at the Tel Aviv Film Festival. His latest film, Silence Patton, is scheduled for 2015.


bourke-white-margaret-gen-george-pattonNearly 70 years after the untimely death of U.S. General George S. Patton, suspicions linger as to the nature and circumstances surrounding the demise of this formidable military genius.  On a war-torn, two-lane highway in Mannheim, Germany, Patton’s car was struck on December 21, 1945 by a two-ton Army truck less than six months after the end of WWII hostilities in Europe.  The accident left Patton clinging to life in a Heidelberg hospital during a crucial period when the Allies were attempting to transition from the ravages of war to a sustained peace in Germany.  Within three weeks, Patton would lose his final battle, and the fate of post-war Germany would be sealed for several decades.

At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria.  That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield.  In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views.

But Patton despised the politically driven circus and the media minions that carried out their dirty work.  Still, he continued to speak out against the Russians as an American witness to their brutality during and after the war.  As Stalin devoured Eastern Europe, Patton remarked, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”

In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come.  Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact.  In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags. At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”

Berlin also was given to Stalin’s Army as red meat to feed the dictator’s appetite for killing Germans. To some, including Patton, this was an unnecessary and devastating concession.  In late April 1945, Patton claimed he could take Berlin in just “two days,” an assessment shared by the commander of the 9th Army, General William H. Simpson. As with Prague, Patton’s request to secure Berlin was denied. Sadly, after Patton finally reached the ravaged city, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945, ” for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”

Conventional wisdom holds that Eisenhower’s choice not to capture the eastern capital cities was sober decision-making or that he was bound by the Yalta agreements, though he originally planned for Berlin and Prague. Many would argue that in the spring of 1945 the U.S. was fatigued with war and its military was in no condition to fight World War III. The Americans also needed the Russians to join the fight in the Pacific war, though the Russians never fulfilled that promise. Yet, the “what ifs” of history echo in Patton’s words: “The American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these.”

Moreover, Patton’s notion of meeting the enemy “now, rather than later” in retrospect seems not the mere wiles of a warmonger unable to embrace peacetime, but rather a worthy and prudent strategy of a seasoned tactician, even if a gamble. Stalin’s own records prove that he told his leaders to “play down” the Berlin invasion, aware that it was Europe’s crown jewel. Eisenhower, for all his discernment and skill at war management, did not see the Russians coming as did Patton and Churchill, who both recognized the wisdom of stopping Stalin in his tracks and perhaps offering Eastern Europe a chance at liberation.

Stalin had promised to liberate the capitals of Eastern Europe—Berlin, Prague, and Vienna—as well as Eastern Poland and the Baltic states. In his public broadcast dating back to November 1943 he promised, “The day is not far off when we will completely liberate the Ukraine, and the White Russia, Leningrad and Kalinin regions from the enemy; we will liberate . . . the people of the Crimea and Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldavia and Karelo-Finnish Republic.”  Instead, history proves that Stalin was responsible for the murder and/or starvation of some 40 million Russians and Ukrainians during his reign of terror.

In light of the Red Army’s 20th century rampage, with unprecedented carnage and devastation and arguably the darkest time in Western history, was Patton not the sober warrior speaking truth to a political expediency or human fatigue?  Was he not correct about Russian post-war intentions? Would not his attempt to push back his future foes and prevent further genocide have been worth the risk of another battle to secure the eastern capitals? We know the answer now, but Patton knew the answer then.

By the end of the war Patton was defeated. As Eisenhower prepared for the political stage, every misspoken or emotionally charged word uttered by his greatest fighting general threatened to undermine Eisenhower’s credibility and authority, as well as the progress of a post-war order. Patton’s outspoken and unsolicited opinions, coupled with his unwillingness to punish all German citizens during the de-Nazification period, caused Eisenhower to sideline the general. Patton believed in the righteous cause of the military and revealed his plans to fight those who were destroying its morale and who endangered America’s future by not opposing the growing Soviet threat.  As a result, he was silenced. He would later say, “when I finish this job, which will be around the first of the year, I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth . . .”

Never short on words or the courage to deliver them, one wonders what secrets Patton might have revealed to the world had he not met a premature end. His diaries are littered with criticisms of Eisenhower and General Omar Bradley, and at times he found fault with how the war was executed at what he believed was at the expense of American GIs? Were these convictions enough of a threat to put his own life in danger with his peers? Is it plausible that the Russians, weary of his anti-Soviet rhetoric, might have employed the NKVD for the ultimate dirty job?

In light of those who opposed Patton—enemies and allies alike—is it any wonder why 70 years later many still would question his untimely death?

Even today, his silence can be heard.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • DemocracyRules

    PATTON WAS ASSASSINATED
    It was done jointly between the Russians and the US. The actual ‘hit man’ who drove the truck that destroyed Patton’s car, was an American. Why does this article ignore this?

    • Johnny Palestine

      Front page is a very good website but I wonder if Mr Horowitz is on the CFR or desires to be a part of it so avoids the edges. Was Patton alone in his car? I have read that he was not and he was the only one seriously injured. The article failes to mention the death of Larry MacDonald who was killed when the Russian Air Force attacked the Korean airliner in 1980. WHO ordered these deaths? The R&R boys: Rockefeller and or Rothschild. Capitalism for me but Socialism and Taxation for you.

      • Pete

        See Christopher Riddle’s post below.

        “Patton’s longtime chief-of-staff “Hap”(Hobart)Gay was with him in the car.The car(a 1938 Cadillac)was driven by Pfc.Woodring”

    • Teavangelical

      Indeed he was, as testified to by the assassin himself–a member of the OSS and Jedburghs, hired by “Wild Bill” Donovan. Even though the car crash didn’t kill him (as intended), the Russians managed to get a nurse to visit him in the hospital with a lethal injection (for which the Russians by then were famous).

      A great case for this assassination was made in the book “Target:Patton” by Robert Wilcox, who interviewed the alleged assassin. Also, listen to a 2009 interview with Wilcox here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkQqMafg3UY

  • truebearing

    Patton was a military genius. He was a visionary. He could see many moves ahead of the average general. His briliance was a threat to Eisenhower as much as the Russians. Had they listened to him and Churchill, the two greatest leaders of WWII, we may have never had Soviet spies steal our nuclear secrets or a long Cold War. Tens of millions of Europeans would have lived free. America would have fulfilled its intended destiny, but politics stopped it short.

    MacArthur wanted to go after Communist China but was stopped by the already corrupt UN and a Democrat President who was afraid of his political popularity.

    • Johnny Palestine

      Patton knew that communism was institutional slavery. He would have been the President. Not Mr. Eisenhower, devotee to the R&R boys. He ended segregation in 1957 but betrayed Israel as did Canada’s Lester Pearson and the slimy Paul Martin Sr.

      • Robert Orlando

        “Well-intentioned” institutional slavery and therein lies the rub!

    • Christopher Riddle

      I couldn’t AGREE with you MORE!Patton and Churchill were VERY similar.They both belived in”Fate and Destiny”.Patton(of course)belived in”Re-Incarnation”as well.They BOTH said what was on their minds and understood”TYRANTS” well!Patton’s Cadillac was not struck by a”deuce and a-half”:His car struck the truck because his driver had been”blind-sided”momentarily.While his death was(indeed)tragic,I believe that The Lord was showing mercy to G.S.Patton Jr.He couldn’t have abided what went on with The Cold-War!!

      • Robert Orlando

        They both understood that at a certain point, when the war was almost over, they needed to focus on the Russians. The simple fact that they were alone in this endeavor proves the power of politics, fear, and fatigue in times of tremendous strain. Stalin new how to take advantages of these moments and would later take advantage of the poverty it caused to create the Soviet Empire.

        • Christopher Riddle

          You are quite right!Churchill and Patton”Knew”Stalin,and were afraid of what he was capable of if un-checked.Stalin was”manic-depressive”.He went to pieces when The Germans were closing on Moscow(1941).I’m only surprised that he wasn’t”replaced”?How different things might have been??Oh well,this is the”Penalty”we put ourselves through by studying history!!There’s a multitude of”What Ifs”??????

          • Robert Orlando

            Or worse is to NOT to have learned from history, and continuing to proceed as if all is new and unknown. As some one who reads history, I am smitten by the fact that it is usually the most utopian ideals that get the most people killed.

          • Christopher Riddle

            A:hover { COLOR: #1188d2 !important } A:hover SPAN { COLOR: #1188d2 !important } .button-cta:hover { COLOR: #ffffff !important; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #1188d2 } .button-cta:hover SPAN { COLOR: #ffffff !important } #outlook A { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px } BODY { WIDTH: 100% !important } .ReadMsgBody { WIDTH: 100% } .ExternalClass { WIDTH: 100%; DISPLAY: block !important } @media Unknown { HTML { -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100% } .content { WIDTH: 100% } TABLE { BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse } H2.headline { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px; FONT-SIZE: 20px !important; FONT-WEIGHT: 700 } .button-cta { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px !important; PADDING-TOP: 0px !important; PADDING-LEFT: 0px !important; DISPLAY: block !important; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px !important } DIV.header { PADDING-TOP: 20px } DIV.footer { PADDING-BOTTOM: 20px } } p.mod-tools a:hover { color: white!important; background: #8c989f!important; } /* ————————————- PHONE-SIZED DEVICES ————————————- */ @media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) { td.avatar, td.spacer { width: 38px!important; } td.avatar img, td.spacer img { width: 28px!important; } }
            I believe you’re right!Patton was looked at(by Ike,Bradley,etc)as an”OddBall”.He was TRULY a”SOLDIER”while they were just”Amateurs/Politicos”.They saw themselves ad doing a”Job”;Patton (on the other hand)”A Calling”.Patton understood that”Time”was one of his Worst enemies.If he took too much(in preparing an attack),he was also giving the enemy that much more to prepare a defense!!L’Audace,L’Audace…To Jour L’Audace”!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Reader

      “MacArthur wanted to go after Communist China but was stopped by the already corrupt UN and a Democrat President who was afraid of his political popularity.”
      A complaint that I have seen about MacArthur is his chief of staff was incompetent.
      Another problem is the incident with the Bonus Army.

    • Ellman48

      Yes, Roosevelt and Truman kept us from stopping the spread of Communism from their bases in Russia and China. Eventually we had to fight more wars to stop its spread. Patton, Churchill and MacArthur were correct; Roosevelt and Truman were wrong.

      Now we’re making the same mistakes with Islamist Fascism and Terrorism. Those who want to defeat it forcefully and finally are silenced and stopped by the politically correct politicians who fear offending Muslim sensibilities.

      There is one difference: we ended up in a Cold War with Russia for 4 decades; with the Islamo-fascists we will be in a Hot War for 4 decades (much less time if Iran acquires nuclear weapons).

      Politics and Prostitution, the oldest professions. They have so much in common and remain the same after thousands of years of history. One has to acknowledge, however, that prostitution has cause far less harm to mankind than politics has.

      • Robert Orlando

        Politics have NO place on the battlefield!

        • Ellman48

          Agree completely. Absent politics we would have had lasting victories in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Politics turned, or will turn, all of these engagements into defeats. If the politicians had listened to Patton and MacArthur we would not have had the Cold War or any of wars we’ve had since the Cold War began.

          • Robert Orlando

            Political misjudgments are recorded as well intentioned but the views of Patton almost those of a madman or warmonger, yet, in the end they would have saved lives and possibly prevented the Cold War!

      • truebearing

        Well said.

    • Johnny Palestine
    • Robert Orlando

      Though you can argue that in his political life, his human foibles got the best of him, on the battlefield he had no peers! He won or was involved in most of the crucial battles of WW2!

      • hiernonymous

        Well, except for D-day, Alamein, Stalingrad, Kursk, Kharkov, Midway, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa…

        Patton was great, no doubt about it, but yes, he had peers.

    • Robert Orlando

      Safe to say that Patton was playing chess when the US establishment was content to play checkers with Russian the the post war agreements? I would say absolutely!

    • hiernonymous

      Patton was an operational genius. He could maneuver troops and anticipate tactical and operational responses like few others. That doesn’t translate into strategic genius, and Patton had his weaknesses. In this respect, he reminds me of Rommel.

      To illustrate the concept, consider Rommel’s strategic mission when he was sent to Libya with 2 light panzer divisions and what we would today call a mech or motorized division. He was given the mission of stopping the Italian collapse and defending the existing front. Rommel promptly violated his orders and went on the offensive. He drove the Brits back to the Egyptian frontier, outran his supplies, was pushed back to his starting point. He got additional reinforcements and supplies, and embarked on one of the most brilliant, legendary pieces of operational generalship in military history. He cracked the lines at Gazala with a boldly calculated risk, abandoning his supply lines temporarily to flank the British fortifications. By the time he again outran his supplies at El Alamein, he had written himself into every military history book.

      And he had caused immeasurable damage to the strategic military position of the Axis. Because if his offensive, troops and supplies earmarked for the assault on Malta were shifted to support his impromptu offensive. Germany was forced to pour ever greater resources into sustaining an utterly unnecessary fight, and the Germans eventually lost a quarter million men in Tunisia. Imagine what the Germans might have done with a quarter million men at, say, the destruction of Army Group Center.

      Don’t confuse operational brilliance with strategic vision.

    • Robert Orlando

      “Genius of War” as one biographer put it. And it plays out in the actual battle record during the war.

  • ConcernedCitizen999

    This is the best article I’ve seen on FP in a long time. The “assassination” of Patton ties together so many other lines of inquiry into the attack on Western Civilization that’s been going on for the last hundred years. In a way it’s the culmination and a proof of the perfidy of those forces acting to destroy the West.

    • Robert Orlando

      Thanks! I call it the “Great Pivot Point” in US History. My film and Book will uncover that just prior to that pivot, was the prophetic voice of Patton warning of the new direction. We are still living on the other side of those warnings. http://www.silencepatton.com

      • DemocracyRules

        Mr: Orlando:
        So why did you not report the assassination evidence? It’s very strong. Why did I have to bring it up in the comments?

        • Robert Orlando

          You’ll need to see the film I guess?

          • DemocracyRules

            I hope you make the movie!

          • Robert Orlando

            Stay in touch, will send screening dates.

  • Paco

    The US public would never have supported a war against our “allies” the Russians. Patton was also virulently racist and anti-semitic. This conspiracy stuff is nonsense. All they had to do to get rid of him was cut him orders sending him back to the States. Problem solved.

    • bob smith

      do you know why you are an idiot Paco?

      A. You obviously have NEVER opened a history book in your life.

      B. Your stupid telemetry of racism that has nothing to do with anything but while you are on the subject, have a look at the track record of libtards at that time insofar as their open hatred of Jews and the British.

      C. History, granted though recent and obviously well beyond the kin of an illiterate with a big mouth and small brain such you has shown that the Soviet Union and the cold war were very real until the dissolution of the Soviet machine, even though this has escaped a simpleton such as you.

      D. Patton was a hero who delivered freedom to the oppressed and died for his country. What have you done besides excelling at stupidity and ignorance?

      • RAM500

        Do you know why you lack class?

        • Drakken

          Bob has more class in his pinky finger than you do in that progressive little body of yours.

        • bob smith

          Do you know why I could care less of what a snivelling, politically correct, shallow minded pos such as you ram would have to say?

          Worthless. Valueless. Clueless. Empty. Devoid of thought.

          Take your pick or better yet, take them all…the shoe fits.

    • Robert Orlando

      Leaping from support or neutrality (with Russians) to all out war is not necessarily true. The “risk” of war perhaps, but my contention is 1) we were risking men based on other calculations and 2) merely to contain the major cities like Vienna, Prague and Berlin would have made a profound impact on the post war world.

      • Drakken

        You forgot one important detail in that equation, the Germans would have given Patton those cities and were hoping that Patton would help them contain the Russians.

    • txsense

      nothing is more annoying them an opinionated idiot

    • DemocracyRules

      Paco, Paco…
      Evidence please!
      When he died, Patton was on his way back to the US. That was the problem. Once he was there, he could have become a presidential candidate. Even if he lost, he would make a lot of noise. Because we ignored Patton, about 70 million people died as victims of communism. They’re still dying.

      • Robert Orlando

        Hear Hear.

  • bob smith

    Robert Orlando, your essay though very good was unfortunate in that you could have done a more accurate job of doing your research and tying in the parallels of this essay with the actions of the administration today.

    Firstly, you have given general Eisenhower far too much credit as if to suggest that his actions and his alone were of his own free will. This is erroneous at best. Actually, let’s just call it wrong altogether.

    Roosevelt pulled ALL OF THE STRINGS ALWAYS! (Sound similar to today?) Keep in mind the great consternation met by Churchill in pleading with Roosevelt from 1938 through to 1943 for the US to enter the war. Even to just assist in affording supplies. Roosevelt had no gumption for war of any kind and as slow as it took him to ‘do the right thing’ by entering ww2, he was diametrically as fast exiting it.

    He was a socialist who found common thread with his uncle Joe in many respects and he had no love for Jews nor the British. He clipped Eisenhower’s wings at every step of the way and always.

    Now, your comment on the promise by the Russians to assist the west in the Pacific is categorically wrong. Quite the opposite; in the race for the bomb and the loss of appetite for war (evidenced by giving away all of eastern Europe at Yalta) the west decided that in order to end the Pacific war earnestly before the Russians could get involved in that theater. A such, the administration made the decision to fast track their nuclear program and in fact, the Hiroshima bombing was the second only nuclear detonation of the time (after the Trinity test) and in fact the first using uranium. The intent was to bring the Japanese to their knees and forgo Russian involvement.

    In the end, yes Patton was a genius commander such as are many today within the purged ranks of military leadership but never forget, Roosevelt was ultimately the string puller and hence, Russia got its way and the libtards destroyed the face of the planet for the next 50 years until the dissolution of the Soviet machine.

    Today, libtards are at it again and one wonders not what the next 50 years will look like but just the next 10.

    • Robert Orlando

      There could be a sequel. Standby!

      • bob smith

        I applaud you nonetheless for tackling a complex but fabulous American hero and patriot as General Patton.

        Thank you.

        • Robert Orlando

          Cheers.

    • Johnny Palestine

      F Delano Roosevelt, I believe was a devotee to the British Pilgrim Society. He was of wealthy American French and Dutch stock with connections to Mr Rothschild. The British elites pulled his strings. He may not have loved them but he obeyed them or else he would die under suspicous circumstances a la President Harding, on a train in Alaska. May 1 1933 is a date that will livein infamy. The date Americans had to surrender their gold to the US govt which was then used to fill up Fort Knox; at 20$/oz.

      A greater issue to discuss is what threat if any at all did Germany put on the USA? Did Roosevelt believe that Germany was so powerful it was going to invade America, either directly or inidrectly via spies to commit terrorism until the US surrendered? At that time there was no threat of a German produced atomic bomb. Maybe the real reson for the declaration of war on Germany was on orders of the R&R gang to take Germany`s gold, silver and cement full control beyond any doubt, of the European Central Banks and use this war to support their new pet project, the IMF?

      Patton was removed since he was his own man, maybe a Jew hater, maybe not but he would have respected the Israelis (more than Ike) above the need for oil which itself must be respected. JFK, RFK and MLK also walked alone. They had to depart to open the door to the untacit policy of socialism in the USA, Canada and Europe.

      I suppose killing Winnie would raise to many eyebrows. FDR passed away in 1945 taking his secrets with him.

      • bob smith

        Johnny, historical facts would disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion that the British pulled anything with FDR. In fact, it was exceedingly well known that FDR despised The Empire for the global oppression it espoused, in his view and in particular the oppression it ensued within Asia.

        The rest is open to conjecture but whether a foreign power does or does not pose ‘immediate and direct’ threat misses the same point as exposed with library politics of the day. To wit, does a severely less politically stable globe engender greater or lesser safety abroad and even at home?

        To my way of thinking, much of what odumbo is doing today harkens back to the same ‘why can’t we all just get along’ stupidity exemplified by FDR. History is the guide here and ironically whether it is a repeat of Manchurian issues, the Russian plan of greatness or the reestablishment of the caliphate, FDR despised war.

      • DemocracyRules

        Constant reference to ‘The Rothschilds’ is veiled ant-semitism. The people who struggle for global dominace are numerous, and they come from every background. They want to increase their power, but all humans want that. They are just rich enough to do something about it. What distinguishes them is a common history of becoming wealthy through government associations and government oligarchy. They just want to make the oligarchy bigger.

  • Christopher Riddle

    It’s unfortunate that the photo of Patton is wrong.He had Four-Stars when he died!

    • Robert Orlando

      Good point. Not in my control.

      • Christopher Riddle

        Patton’s longtime chief-of-staff “Hap”(Hobart)Gay was with him in the car.The car(a 1938 Cadillac)was driven by Pfc.Woodring.It struck the truck as it turned left in front of them.Patton(basically)broke his neck(and crushed some vertebrae)when he went forward and struck the glass-divider.I(also)harbored”conspiracy-theories but I’m satisfied that Patton’s death was an accident.Good story,though!

        • Robert Orlando

          You’ll have to see the movie.

  • Gee

    Eisenhower was a lousy general. He prolonged World War II by 6 months. If he hadn’t given half of General Bradley’s to General Montgomery who pushed the Germans back into Germany so they got to fight yet again and allowed the Bradley/Patton team to cut off the German forces they could have taken Berlin in December of 1944.
    As a President he was even worse. Forcing us to give the Sinai back was a huge mistake.

    • Robert Orlando

      I estimate 9 months, if you consider that the Germans who were allowed to escape through the Falaise Gap, would be the same army that returned to fight the Battle of the Bulge. The Western front might have been won in Fall of 1944. We could have also changed our focus from battle to – as Patton warned – starting to contain Russian aggression.

      • Gee

        True enough – that too was Montgomery’s error and Eisenhower holding Patton back

      • hiernonymous

        Two comments here:
        1. Bradley noted later that he stopped Patton because the available divisions would have been stretched so thinly that he did not think Patton’s forces could hold. Do you know that judgment to have been unsound?

        2. The German armored units that did escape made it to the German frontier with very little of their equipment. The units that attacked at the Bulge might have borne the same names as the units that escaped at Falaise, but they had to be nearly entirely reconstituted.

        Bottom line: it was our logistical constraints, not the escape of some of the German forces at Falaise, that prevented us from crossing the German frontier before the Germans had time to reconstitute their units and re-establish a defensive line. That wasn’t the result of bad generalship. The biggest mistake of the campaign, arguably, had nothing to do with Falaise, and everything with failing to recognize the significance of the German pockets near Antwerp, resulting in our inability to use the port to reduce the length of our supply lines for several months.

    • Erudite Mavin

      Ike and Churchill were not onboard at first with the location of D Day.
      Stalin’s friend Harry Hopkins who was joined at the hip with FDR and Stalin pushed France rather than the better location, moving up from Italy.

      • Robert Orlando

        Right again!

    • Robert Orlando

      Not very well known.

  • Deagin

    Patton was going to resign instead of retiring so he would be free to criticize Eisenhower and not have to worry about his pension. He was independently wealthy and didn’t need a pension. He was going to tell the American people about all the mistakes Eisenhower made including giving Montgomery the task of closing the Falaise Gap and encircling the German army trying to get out of Normandy when Patton was better positioned to do so. Montgomery failed and the Germans were able to retreat into Germany and regroup to attack us at the battle of the bulge where we got caught unprepared., leading to 89000 casualties. After the Bulge Patton wanted to encircle the Germans and trap them which he surely could have done, instead Eisenhower decided to push the Germans back with frontal attacks which took months with high casualties. Prior to that Eisenhower signed on to operation market garden which was the plan of Montgomery to attack through Holland into northern Germany, also known as A Bridge too far. Patton would not have signed onto a plan to send an armored division down a two lane highway bordered by woods on both sides. It was a disaster. Eisenhower sent the army into the Hurtgen Forest. It was literally a dead end with 33000 casualties. All for no strategic gain. As others have noted Patton wanted to push into Eastern Europe and prevent Stalin from taking over those counties. There were many reasons why someone decided that Patton had to die. Some believe it was a collaboration between the soviets and the OSS which was riddled with communists. All in all his death was suspicious.

    • Robert Orlando

      That is why it is worth a film and book on the subject!
      http://www.silencepatton.com

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        I hope it comes somewhere close to where I live. I’d like to see it …

        • Robert Orlando

          Where’s that?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            About 70 miles SW of Chicago.

            There’s a large theater complex in Schaumberg, Illinois, that regularly plays movies that others do not, such as the works of Dinesh D’Souza. The last time I was there, in 2012, the place was packed, with others waiting for the next showing.

          • Robert Orlando

            Good to know. Stay in touch, Will try to let you know when we are close? Is there a military base nearby.

  • UCSPanther

    A lot of people at the time before WWII were hopelessly smitten with both Hitler and Stalin, but refused to understand that they were tyrants who only cared about power.

    That is why anyone venerating Vladimir Putin does not sit well with me…

    • Robert Orlando

      It’s amazing to read how FDR speaks of Stalin in the record. How he tries to set up a relationship with him that keeps out Churchill.

  • RAM500

    Simpson had a better shot at Berlin than Patton did. Ike via Bradley turned Simpson down when the US Ninth Army was some 50 km from Berlin. By that time Churchill wanted Berlin for the western allies as a bargaining chip with Stalin who was already reneging on his commitments.

    • Robert Orlando

      The research will prove out that against conventional understanding the Allies could have taken Berlin. They chose not to for some of the reasons you point out, BUT what a price to pay for the post war period and Cold War to follow!

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        The Germans had … effectively … given the Western Allies the green light to advance on Berlin by stripping units from the west, and moving them to defend against the Soviets. There was virtually nothing of consequence between the British?US forces and Berlin, when Eisenhower decided to hold in place.

        The West gave Eastern Europe and Berlin to the Soviets for their “pleasure” …

        • Robert Orlando

          Yes.

    • DemocracyRules

      Ram:
      Evidence please!

  • Barbaracvm

    My dad said when he heard Patton died ‘he was m u r d e r e d !’ Patton could have taken the allied army all the way to Moscow. With all the US army plus the German, and the various Slavic groups it would have been done in a short time. Russia had free ammunitions and military equipment was because of the Lend Lease Act. Once the war was over Russian would not be getting any additional equipment. Stalin refused to return about 40,000 POWs. He considered them to be the spoils of war. POW who were soldiers from the allied armies, supposedly fighting the same side of the war.
    Patton was planning on writing his memories. There were a lot of unflattering comments about Bradley, Eisenhower and Montgomery. Eisenhower was already planning his political career.

    • Robert Orlando

      I have heard or read this several times about Patton’s men. Another factor that requires a thorough investigation!

  • Erudite Mavin

    My great Uncle was in Patton’s 3rd Army, who he greatly admired.
    My great uncle found it hard to speak about what he went through especially being one of the many Americans who liberated Buchenwald

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      So was my father, who was part of the move north to support the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. Of course, having been a part of the 101st, myself (in Vietnam), none of us will admit to having needed to be rescued.

      • Erudite Mavin

        Thank you for your service in nam

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          It was an honor. Thanks …

          • truebearing

            You honored the nation by serving.

    • Robert Orlando

      Patton was distraught. He wrote to Eisenhower…

      “We have found at a place four miles north of WEIMAR a similar camp, only much worse. The normal population was 25,000, and they died at the rate of about a hundred a day. The burning arrangements, according to General Gay and Colonel Codman who visited it yesterday, were far superior to those they had at OHRDRUF.

      I told the press to go up there and see it, and then write as much about it as they could. I also called General Bradley last night and suggested that you send selected individuals from the upper strata of the press to look at it, so that you can build another page of the necessary evidence as to the brutality of the Germans.”

      • Erudite Mavin

        Patton did not fit the FDR – Stalin agenda.
        How Europe would have been vastly different
        after the war if Patton had his way.
        Also wonder how events would have been different if FDR bombed the rail road tracts to these concentration camps.
        IN 1983 when in East Germany on my way to Weimar,
        I saw Buchenwald up on an area. Yes am sure there were many more camps not located.

        • Robert Orlando

          As Patton and the war was prolonged by politics, the camps continued their dirty business.

          • Erudite Mavin

            Exactly.
            My early yrs. as a child and later, I grew up in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood and remember the many neighbors who were around 5 years out of the concentration camps including the Rabbi and his wife.

          • Robert Orlando

            My family is originally from Brooklyn NY (Borough Park area), so I know. It’s a horrible reminder that the freedoms we have as Americans should never become a thin veil of distant memory, merely argued in academia, or in media, but the promoter of our national vigilance. Patton always had American interest in the front of his mind, even if it meant fighting bloody battles.

          • Erudite Mavin

            My neighborhood mentioned in 50s to early 70s,
            was here in San Diego.
            Good old Brooklyn. Great Grandparents from there on back in Bushwick, Williamsburg and Greenpoint

  • Guest

    Patton was reined-in by FDR whose administration was riddled with Communists an their sympathizers; e.g.; Alger Hiss. Do the math. Also read “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers.

    • Robert Orlando

      Next film?

  • James_IIa

    Some quite knowledgeable comments. I don’t have a handle on Patton (or Ike) pushing back the Russians at the time but I’ve acquired a quite negative take on Monty. Another point is that Eisenhower’s approach to the war seems very much in the mold of what has become typical American strategy: achieve overwhelming materiel and logistics advantages, advance on a broad front, use what seems like supersaturated bureaucracy. I believe that goes all the way to Lincoln and Grant.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Market Garden took the supplies that Patton desperately needed to push into Germany, and gave them to the most cautious commander on the Allied side … Montgomery. Patton understood that when an army moves fast, and defeats the enemy, the war ends along with the dying.

      • James_IIa

        Agreed. Ike kept Monty on for diplomatic reasons. I sometimes think that Patton would have been better as the supreme commander. Reason: Eisenhower would have obeyed orders, while Patton sometimes caused trouble by exceeding his orders. As chief, he probably would have laid down the law to his subordinates, and we would have had better coordination.

      • hiernonymous

        Except that in this case, it was Monty with the bold vision of a single bold strike, and the Americans who wanted a general push on all fronts. The alternative to MARKET GARDEN was not a bold thrust by Patton, but a broad push by the Allied forces of which Patton commanded one of several armies.

        Problem is, the latter was the correct strategy for the circumstances. The Germans did not have the manpower to defend everywhere, but we had the resources to attack everywhere. The “single bold thrust” allows the enemy to concentrate his dwindling resources against our main effort. The broad approach applied pressure everywhere until the front eventually ruptured.

        It’s not the right approach for every situation, and it doesn’t make for sexy reading, but a good general goes with what’s appropriate, not with what’s going to make the most exciting story. Grant understood that in the Civil War, and applied broad grinding pressure against Lee, regardless of tactical setbacks. Union Generals who tried to meet Lee on his own terms rarely succeeded.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          The “single, bold thrust” should have been delivered by the General best positioned to make it. That would have been Patton. Except for lightly-armed, poorly-trained pockets of forces, there was nothing between him and Berlin. After penetrating into Germany, the German generals would ordered no resistance, because their primary fear was the Russians, not the Western Allies.

          Montgomery conceived of a single, bold thrust, too. His thrust would have been delivered against the bulk of German forces in the West. It was done so with poor intelligence … they didn’t know about the forces gathering for the Ardennes Offensive. Also, it was delivered along a single axis of advance. After an initial surprise, the Germans reacted accordingly, with their usual alacrity in delivering counter-strikes (a German specialty).

          Also, with his usual intense caution, Montgomery delivered his “bold stroke” with caution, depending upon the armored thrust to deliver, and putting lightly-equipped airborne forces at risk.

          We both agree about the broad front. It was a complete waste of resources. But a local “broad front” would have been the best alternative. Several powerful advances, which would have diluted the German counter-attacks.

          An attack by Third Army would have collapsed the German Army in the West …

    • Robert Orlando

      And long term it might be a losing strategy, no? How does America win wars when we cannot overwhelm our enemies with material superiority? It will mean the employment of some “Blood and Guts, no?”

      • James_IIa

        Good question. We defeated the Soviets by opposing on all fronts–not just across the Iron Curtain, but in Asia, Latin America, and Africa as well. We came close to giving up under Carter, but eventually our adversary simply collapsed out of exhaustion. But in the current circumstances our leader has seemingly sabotaged our own capacities, so we may well be looking at a new kind of conflict in which we can no longer assume superiority. As you say, it might ultimately take a lot more blood and guts.

  • Ellman48

    “Is it plausible that the Russians, weary of his anti-Soviet rhetoric, might have employed the NKVD for the ultimate dirty job?”

    Plausible? I would say ‘extremely likely’ if not almost certain.

    Did the Russians kill him? Did the IRS destroy Lerner’s damning emails? You decide.

    • DemocracyRules

      PATTON
      Was killed in a joint US – Soviet operation.

      • Robert Orlando

        Where to you find the nexus of such an operation?

        • DemocracyRules

          It may be better for me to ask you that. You know much more about Patton than I do. What do you think?

          • Robert Orlando

            You’ll have to see the film coming to a theater near you.

          • DemocracyRules

            I very much you hope you make this movie. You might find clips of the documentary, ‘The Soviet Story’ [youtube] useful for your lead-in. It’s well documented, and it holds no punches. I have to watch it in segments, to avoid Post-traumatic stress disorder. It certainly gives information that explains why Patton hated the Soviets.

            Be careful as you go. There are many who want Patton to remain buried. For example, these comments seem riven with Soviet-loving Russians. Their grammatical errors are typical for those whose first language is a Slavic tongue. They are posting comments here for a reason.

            You might want to talk to Larry Sinclair about how to be politically incorrect and still avoid trouble. He has lots of experience.

    • Robert Orlando

      It could establish a motive for murder?

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Patton was a foul-mouthed, vulgar, megalomaniac with 20/20 vision into the future. God, I miss him.

    • DemocracyRules

      Dear ‘Sven’
      None of the above is true. He was a meticulous, resolute plodder. He wrote poetry. People forget that Patton spent many years at drafting tables, in labs, and workshops designing and testing tanks, long before WWII. He didn’t just jump in a Sherman and drive away when the war broke out. The US had functional tanks and a decent tank force because of all the work that Patton had done in the pre-war period.

    • Robert Orlando

      A real sonofabitch – God bless him!

  • Barry Soetoro-Chin

    Just like MacArthur about Asia, Patton knew from whence he spoke…

    I’m of the opinion – and I could be wrong – that Eisenhower was a weak leader and a political “tool” of the Roosevelt administation…

    rather than listening to his own generals who had their men’s interests at heart, he accommodated that English idiot, Montogomery, who used infantry as cannon fodder, to appease the ‘ruling class’…

    how sad that two of our greatest Generals paid the price for this folly…

  • http://batman-news.com chuckie2u

    It would appear Patton was the target of Political Correctness even in his day. Too bad the U.S. doesn’t have men of Patton’s statue in our Military and Governing bodies today .

    • Robert Orlando

      Yes, Patton was there at the dawn of our PC world.

  • Teavangelical

    Great article — thank you. Looking forward to the movie. Have you consulted with Robert Wilcox (Target:Patton)?

  • Beloved Infidel

    Okay, let’s take a deep breath and consider the situation in the summer, 1945. There is no doubt that Patton was a brilliant general but that in itself is not sufficient to qualify him as an expert in international politics and foreign policy. Victory in Europe occurred on May 7, 1945 while the war in the Pacific was still raging. The American public was sick and tired of war at this time. Remember 15,000 American were killed on Okinawa in June, 1945 which was probably one of the major reasons for dropping the bombs on Japan.
    It is estimated that the Russians may have taken 100,000 fatalities at Berlin and this may be a low estimate. Do you honestly believe that even a fraction of this slaughter would have been acceptable to the American people.
    What few people are aware of is that the Army Office Corp had racial attitudes toward Jews and other non-white ethics similar to the Nazis. See Joseph Bendersky’s book ‘The Jewish Threat’. Their attitude was that fighting this war would be fighting to save the Jews at the cost of American lives. To them almost all Jews were either communist or capitalists ready to take over the Christian world. If given the choice, they probably would have preferred to go to war against Russia then Germany. FDR always had a problem with the Corp to get the USA on the side of the allies.

    • Jimmy Young

      Well communism is a jewish invention. And jews are craven capitalists willing to make money from anything be it organized crime, human slavery, war or other crimes against humanity. According to the Babylonian Talmud (the most important book to the khazars) we are just goyim or human capital. Modern rabbis to day even say non jews have inferior souls and that if a jew needs an organ transplant that its ok to just take from some goy. The most most racist supremacist group of people today are the Khazarian converts to Judaism.

      • DemocracyRules

        Communism IS NOT a Jewish invention!
        Marx hated Jews and Judaism and every other form of religion. He adapted and organized the socialist ideas that had mostly originated from the French Revolution.

        But he was an ingenious and beautiful writer. The Communist Manifesto is a piece of art, wonderfully logical, easily read in one sitting, and directed squarely at the working man. It’s available free online (e.g., Gutenberg[dot]org).

        It won’t rot your brain, but it will show you why people read Marx, and believed him. Most of his followers were German, which was the left-wing hot-bed of that era.

        He didn’t succeed because he was Jewish, he succeeded because he was smart.

        Millions of other communists were and are from every conceivable social group. Today in Thailand, democracy is continually threatened by the ‘Red Shirt’ party, that claims it is not communist, but it’s entire platform is far to the left. None are Jewish. They are Thai. The North Vietnamese, Laotians, and Chinese communists have very few Jews among them.

  • Jimmy Young

    Ahhh good ole Eisenhower the man responsible for the murder of 1.5 million German p.o.w.s. Eisenhower called them un-armed combatants and put them in horrific standing room only death starvation camps. The guards had orders to shoot anyone giving them food. Problem was that Eisenhower worked for the same people Stalin did, the banking military complex. And we know who runs that don’t we.

    • DemocracyRules

      Jimmy Young:
      You are a troll. None of this is true. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

  • Capt Bob

    Patton would have no use for Obama and his current actions. I would like to hear the speach if he was alive today that he would give on Iraq.

    • Robert Orlando

      I think Patton might say ” Dammit, why do they make me fight these wars with one hand tied behind my back!” He might also say, if these fanatics want to keep murdering each other, let them!

  • Shmalkandik

    * Patton was, to put it mildly, overenthusiastic in estimating the uS could beat the army that beat the best the Nazis had. The USSR has the resources of Eastern Europe at its disposal and land-based supply lines.

    * How many Americans was the US willing to invest? Enough?

    * At its peak, the US could support a bit less than sixty divisions. The UK didn’t count, as it was used up. The Russians had several hundred divisions, and the means to make more, and the ability to bring them on line faster than the US.

    * By Eisenhower’s own accounting, the US had depleted even its massive recruitment pool. There were barely enough bodies to keep divisions near full strength.

    * Yes, the US had fission bombs. How many after the first two?
    In 1945, just one.. This one would kill alot of Russians, but it was not a strategically decisive advantage.

    * Unlike with German, the Us could not reach the USSR’s production centers. In the Urals, they were too far away, B20s notwithstanding.

    • DemocracyRules

      To: Shmal… whatever
      Hitler was defeated in May 1945. By August 1945, the US, Britain, and Canada had tested and proven the power of nuclear weapons. Of course they could make more, they knew how to rapidly make 2 different types. If Truman had just called Stalin and asked him to step down, he probably would have. Stalin was not the type of man to resolutely roast into an ash heap in a Moscow shelter.

      • Shmalkandik

        Well, I suggest it is a great underestimate of what Stalin was willing to to. With one bomb, you can’t attack more than one city.
        That problem solves easy.

        Empire forces, as I noted, were exhausted.
        Getting the soviet Army that had faced Japan back to west of the Urals would have been perfectly feasible in 1945.
        If Patton tries to do this while the war is continuing, he does not have the resources.
        If after, say 1946, he gives the USSR time to increase and replenish its forces.

        In 1946, the USSR is one year away from its own A-bomb.
        The US did not k now where the Russians were developing it, and did not believe, in fact, they could any time within a few years of WWII’s end.

        Now that we are in the realm of speculation, perhaps we can add on the Allied side a German militia, composed of some of the best troops the world had seen.
        MP44s, Panzerfasuts, potato masher grenades, MG42s, 120mm mortars cheap and easy to produce.
        Plenty of capacity left even in 1945 within the Ruhr and Saar.
        But, i speculate.

        No, i don’t believe the Patton option was feasible.

        .

        • DemocracyRules

          You don’t seem to understand. The Manhattan Project did not make 2 or 3 bombs and then stopped production. Why do you think they stopped? Why would they stop? They had all the know-how in place. They had abundant and continuing sources of uranium, and ingenious methods for refining it into bomb-grade uranium-238. That technology is still secret, and the follow-on tech is vastly better than Iran’s ancient centrifuge technology.

          They also had abundant sources of heavy water for plutonium bombs, and effective explosive jackets to trigger plutonium 239 weapons. Iran still cannot make those work.

          They had several bomber types capable of carrying nukes to target to any theater. Is this a Russian myth, that we made 2 bombs and then sat on a log to pick our teeth? Of course we made more.

          If Truman had ordered that Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg) shall be gone in a week, then they would be gone in a week.

          Russia has yet to build a car that works properly. They live today but by our mercy. And we are glad to share that in abundance.

    • Robert Orlando

      From A geopolitical point of view, we could have probably worked out a surrender with Germany that would have avoided the levels of brutality that occurred during the fall of Berlin.

  • DemocracyRules

    Paco, Paco, I keep trying to tell you…
    Calm down and do some reading. You know nothing about him. Your comments are a form of digital pollution.

  • Drakken

    So in other words, your a puzzy, how quaint.

  • Robert Orlando

    And this kind of thinking (caricature) is why audiences still today don’t know who Patton is, beyond the George C Scott portrayal.

  • SoCalMike

    This makes you want to spit on Eisenhower and Bradley.
    2 dk sucking boys compared to a great warrior and a real man like General Patton.

    • Robert Orlando

      If nothing else, Patton knew, and was the “go to” to win the big battles!

  • hiernonymous

    “The Americans also needed the Russians to join the fight in the Pacific war, though the Russians never fulfilled that promise.”

    Here’s a Leavenworth paper that you might want to consider before committing to that particular position too strongly.

    When Germany fell, the Soviets began shifting massive amounts of men and materiel to the east, culminating in an offensive by 1.5 million soldiers over a 2000+ mile front against the Japanese Kwantung Army. It happened on the timetable we had requested. You might recall that we did not share with the Soviets our plans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it’s hardly correct to dismiss Operation August Storm as unimportant or last minute when there was no reason for the Soviets to expect that August 1945 was anything close to the end of the Pacific War.

    The offensive committed 5,500 tanks and 26,000 pieces of artillery against the Japanese. If Patton’s comment on the lack of Soviet artillery and tanks was meant as a sober assessment, and not a bit of the hyperbole to which he was wont, then he was sadly mistaken. A sober assessment would note that the Soviets had more and better tanks, and much more artillery that was employed with much less responsive fire control methods. The ratio of Soviet manpower to Western in Europe at war’s end was about 4:1, and the tank mismatch was 2:1. Our comparative advantages were probably most striking at sea, in the air, and, when it came to ground forces, our trucks.
    Bottom line: anyone asserting that the U.S. Army would have had a relatively easy time of taking on the Soviets in 1945 is engaging in a bit of rose-colored hindsight.

    That’s not to say that the West might not have prevailed in a war, but it would have been brutal, long, and involved massive casualties. Churchill actually called for his military staff to explore the possibility of a July attack on the Soviets. Lord Alan Brooke’s diary entry for 24 May included this comment: “This evening I went carefully through the Planners’ report on the possibility of taking on Russia should trouble arise in our future discussions with her. We were instructed to carry out this investigation. The idea is of course fantastic and the chances of success quite impossible. There is no doubt that from now onwards Russia is all powerful in Europe.” A week later, on the 31st, he noted “We again discussed the ‘unthinkable war’ against Russia at this morning’s COS, and became more convinced than ever that it is ‘unthinkable’!” On 11 June, he reported on comments by Churchill that included “”At any time that it took their fancy [the Soviets] could march across the rest of Europe and drive us back into our island. They had a 2 to 1 land superiority over our forces, and the Americans were returning home.” I’d suggest that Brooke, who shared Patton’s low opinion of Eisenhower’s military capabilities, was in a far better position than Patton to understand the strategic situation in Europe.

    It’s one thing to laud Patton and Churchill for seeing the Soviet threat with clear eyes. It’s another entirely to suggest that launching a war in Europe a few weeks after the German surrender would have been preferable to the actual course of events.

    • Pete

      “It’s one thing to laud Patton and Churchill for seeing the Soviet threat with clear eyes. It’s another entirely to suggest that launching a war in Europe a few weeks after the German surrender would have been preferable to the actual course of events.”

      I agree with that.

      Orlando is going to have to rework his thesis.

      I don’t believe that Patton was murdered. The driver of the truck, which hit Patton never did forgiver himself and he put himself in an early grave.

      “That’s not to say that the West might not have prevailed in a war, but it would have been brutal, long, and involved massive casualties”

      I agree here too. One reason that has been given that we had peace ion the docks and in other areas is that we were siding with the USSR’s enemy. We might have had problems on the home front with communists or socialists. Then there was war weariness. I believe we could have safely armed the Germans. As much as I hate it the U.S. was out gunned in tanks. The T34 was the best tank of the war. It combined the the best of the Sherman with the best of the Panzer. It was not overcomplicated and it had the fire power and armor.

      If we had won it would have been from Russia’s not having proper logistics. The soviets could have gotten to Berlin much faster except their operations ran out of ammo & fuel.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    Thanks for the article. The documentary on Patton sounds great. I’ll look forward to it.

  • RatedBestComment

    instead of separation of church and state the crybaby left always want there should be separation of politics and WAR.

    In almost every instant our military in just about all our wars was able to defeat the enemy ONCE AND FOR ALL was stopped by politics.

    Bush, Clinton, LBJ, Eisenhower, etc.

  • DemocracyRules

    Then why was the guy who drove the truck working for the OSS (US spy agency)? Why did he state that he demolished Patton’s car because he had been ordered to do so?

  • wsk

    The only thing Patton was incorrect about was that the Russian were not short of tanks, artillery or aircraft. The t34/85 was superior to the American Sherman in every way, and there were lots of them. Artillery was considered the russian “God of War” and there was plenty of that , too. When the Russians lacked in tactics they more than made up for in brute strength and overwhelming numbers.