Talk:George S. Patton/Archive 3

Patton, Mike
I was redirected here from Patton. for me Patton is not George Patton, but Mike Patton, and so for more and more people.. Sorry..:), Pozytyv (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of Mike Patton till I saw your post. --69.180.37.163 (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Medals may be wrong=
It seems that that Patton's list of medals may be incorrect. According to the Patton HQ website Patton also received a Distinguished Service Medal from the Navy. He may not have received an American Campaign Medal as that is not included in their list or others. I am not a Patton historian- this should be looked into by someone who really knows. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.72.221 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Aerial resupply fuel
I was talking to a WWII B-17 pilot some years ago and he said that they re-supplied Patton's rapidly advancing Army with fuel by dropping Jerry cans out of B-17's flying at low level. Most of the cans burst upon hitting the ground but one in ten survived the drop and ground troops would scramble around looking for these. Anybody got any RS to confirm this for the article? 70.135.57.8 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds unlikely, the part about cans bursting upon hitting the ground. Maybe a few did, but not 90%. Collier's volume 115 from 1945 describes the scene: "We now have fuel tanks and ammunition cases which can be dropped from planes without parachutes and still not be damaged. When Patton's tanks, racing for Brest, got ahead of their 'fat girls,' planes dropped a few 'sticks' of gasoline and ammunition, and the column rolled on. Of course all of these operations were possible only because the air overhead was unchallenged American air."
 * The book The Legendary DC-3 describes an "on-a-dime dropping contrivance" that was first used by C-47s to airdrop fuel to "General Patton's Third Army tanks and trucks while they were outrunning their supplies across France in August of 1944." There was a fast conveyor belt in the airplane to speed up the drop and put the supplies inside a smaller drop zone. It says that "clusters of five to seven 5-gallon cans of gasoline were dropped by parachute." That means cans were officially dropped with parachutes and, according to the popular magazine Collier's, some amount were dropped without parachutes.
 * Other reports have C-47s landing with gas cans, bomber groups making a few gasoline supply sorties, and possibly gliders landing filled with gas cans. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bradley's role in film
In the section on Patton, the film, near the end, the end of paragraph two says that Bradley's role in the film "remains controversial to this day." This seems a stretch, since the film is forty years old and there is no citation. I dare say there is no recent criticism of Bradley's role in the film.

The sentence immediately before it says Bradley "despised" Patton's methods. This word seems too harsh. "Disapproved" would be accurate.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points, both of them. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The "controversy" does remain alive among various factions of military buffs. There's no RECENT criticism because all the participants are long dead, but the Bradley and Patton partisans (me being among the latter) will still argue the subject. I just had a long chat with a USMA grad friend of mine, an armor officer, and sure enough, we ended up talking about how Bradley had used the movie to reduce "good old George" to a cartoon character of himself.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

1912 Olympics on George S Patton's page
User Skysmith - you reverted my anonymous edit eliminating the claim that Jim Thorpe won the competetion in Stockholm in which Patton participated.

He did not. The top 4 places in Modern Pentathlon were claimed by Swedes as can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_pentathlon_at_the_1912_Summer_Olympics.

Thorpe won the Pentathlon and Decathlon at the 1912 games, but did not particpate in Modern Pentathlon. Please revert your reversion; or clarify the sentence to reflect Thorpe's participation in the same games, but remove the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.220.81 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange Reference to Patton & Pershing's membership in Freemasonry in WWI section
In the first paragraph of the World War I section there is a curious sentence. It reads as follows;

"At the outset of the U.S. entry into World War I, then-Major General John J. Pershing, a Freemason promoted Patton, also a Freemason, to the rank of captain."

Is there a reason it is important to mention that Patton and Pershing were Freemasons in this sentence/section? Is there some relevant reason why it was mentioned (e.x. such as some evidence indicating Pershing favored Patton because he was a fellow Mason, etc). If there is a reason why their membership as Masons is relevant to this promotion then it should be elaborated upon and sourced. Otherwise I don't see why Patton and Pershing's membership as Freemasons is being mentioned in this context. It's either irrelevant or is leading the reader to some ambiguous conclusion.

Don't get me wrong. Patton being a Freemason is an interesting fact and may have a place elsewhere int he article. It seems appropriate to me include the fact that Patton was a Freemason in another section which discusses his interests/hobbies/early life as long as its sourced. It just seems awkward and unnecessary in the sentence I cited above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAClean76 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's what Wikipedia calls a "personal agenda." It's not relevant, of course, but I suspect the author has an outlook that causes him to believe that it is. I would suggest that it goes. Hengistmate (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

stars?
there is a diagram showing his rank over the years. he seems to go up to 3 stars by 1943, but then in 1944 suddenly goes back down to one. then quickly up again to 4. can anyone please add to the article an explanation for that apparent big demotion? Cramyourspam (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is touched upon in the section regarding Patton's relationship with Eisenhower (where it mentions Patton's comment about them both still being Colonels in the Regular Army), but it isn't explicitly explained. It can be confusing to those not familiar with the difference between the "permanent" Regular Army and the "temporary" Army of the United States; perhaps it would be better to split the table, showing his Regular Army and National Army (WWI)/Army of the United States (WWII) promotion dates in different columns. That would at least make it more clear that he was actually promoted from the permanent rank of Colonel to the permanent rank of Brigadier General, rather than being apparently demoted from Lieutenant General. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.52.99 (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Patton at Fort Hood?
After the slapping incidents in Sicily, Patton was relieved of command. He was sent to various places, and my Dad said he was sent to Fort Hood, Texas, for a short time. Dad was taking his basic training at Fort Hood at the time, and he said he saw Patton once or twice from a distance. Is there any documentation to substantiate this story? I know my Dad was drafted around the time when the slapping incidents took place, so the dates certainly match.97.73.64.144 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Need To Get The Story Straight
The George S. Patton article's account of the "United States' first motorized vehicle attack" differs from the account of the same event in the Pancho Villa Expedition article. The differences are not mere problems of style or word choice; rather facts differ.

According to George_S._Patton: "Conducting the United States' first motorized vehicle attack, then-Lieutenant Patton with ten soldiers of the 6th Infantry Regiment used three Dodge Brothers Touring cars"

According to Pancho_Villa_Expedition "With fifteen men and three Dodge armored cars, Patton led America's first armored vehicle attack"

So according to the former:
 * Troops in addition to Patton: 10.
 * Type of cars used: Dodge Brothers Touring cars.
 * Type of historic "first" for US forces: motorized vehicle attack.

And according to the latter:
 * Troops in addition to Patton: 15.
 * Type of cars used: Dodge armored cars.
 * Type of historic "first" for US forces: armored vehicle attack.

I'm time-strapped lately and this isn't exactly a high-priority item. I hope another editor can figure out the proper figures and facts some day. Cheers.

Cramyourspam (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The cars were certainly not armored-- somebody has conflated this with Patton's later tank attack in WW I, which was the first American armored attack (though other countries had tried small demos first). According to D'Este, the number in Patton's expedition was 13: Patton, 10 troops, and 2 civilian guides. I'll fix it up a bit. S  B Harris 18:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I, too, thought this was not an armored attack but the first mechanized attack, the first motorized cavalry attack. I thought it also included confiscated civilian automobiles. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Master of the Sword
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MILHIST. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy over Patton's death
The article presents the official account of Patton's death as though it were historical fact. It has been alleged that he was murdered, to suppress his opposition to the Morgenthau Plan ( http://www.rense.com/general63/patton.htm has references to published sources ). I have no idea what the truth is in this matter but it seems to me that the allegations should at least be mentioned. They seem inherently plausible. Barbacana (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed here before (search for "Wilcox" in the archive search box above). Adding to the article would probably require addressing the issues discussed there to a (new) consensus here on the talk page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jwy, how about the claims in Target Patton stating that the Patton Cadillac in Fort Knox was not the actual Cadillac in the accident? Can it be included? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the (only) judge here, but since the objection is generally to the reliability of the source, I would suggest we shouldn't include it unless it is supported in another (acceptable) source. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edit to Section 10 - Patton as viewed by his comtemporaries
3rd Para. relates Bradley's negative opinion of Patton, and Patton's alleged resentment of Bradley taking credit for his ideas.

However it is interesting to note Patton's high opinion of Bradley as a General Officer. Patton's Efficiency Report on Bradley dated 12th September 1943, made while the latter was his subordinate, is striking. Patton rates Bradley's performance as "Superior" across the board, and recommends him for command of an Army. To the question "Of all general officers of his grade personally known to you, what number would you give him on this list, and how many comprise your list," Patton's response reads, "Number 1. I know all of them."

This Efficiency Report can be viewed at http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/Contemporary_Studies/2008/2008-May/2008-05-14_Efficiency_Report_Lieutenant_General_Omar_Bradley_1943.pdf

--204.244.252.65 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Patton in El Paso August 1914?
I have a question about the photograph showing Pershing, Villa and Obregón. I am very knowledgeable about the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) and this photograph is in a great many books about the Revolution. I have doubts that the tall young man to the side of Pershing is Patton. I have 13 books on the Revolution, and this photograph is in four. In Eisenhower’s Intervention, he has the photo on page 194, but he does not identify the tall young man. In McLynn’s Villa and Zapata he has the photo between pages 304 and 305, but he does not identify the tall young man. In Hall’s Álvaro Obregón she has the photo between pages 82 and 83, and she identifies the young man as Patton. And in Peterson and Knoles’ Pancho Villa they have the photo between pages 128 and 129, and they identify the young man as 1st Lieutenant James Collins, father of astronaut Michael Collins.

I have only read one biography of Patton, Stanley Hirshson’s ''General. Patton: A Soldier’s Life''. He does not have this photograph in his book, and he makes no mention of Patton being in El Paso around August 1914. Hirshson says 2nd Lt. Patton reported to Fort Riley, Kansas in October 1913 (pg 63) where he was an instructor on cavalry sword fighting techniques. Hirshson details Patton’s life at Fort Riley, but he makes no mention of a trip to El Paso, and makes no mention of being familiar with General Pershing at this time. It appears he remained in Fort Riley until August 1915 (pg 69), when he was transferred to Fort Bliss, El Paso. Once he arrived in El Paso, Hirshson says, “Exactly when he met Brigadier General John J. Pershing, soon to command Fort Bliss, is uncertain, but it must have been early in the fall of 1915.”

I’m thinking Patton did not know Pershing in August 1914, and so the tall young man next to Pershing could not be Patton. I think the photograph should be removed from the article, or at the very least, the photo caption should indicate ‘that the tall young man next to Pershing is often identified as Patton.’ Ramon4 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Library of Congress entry does not say that Patton is in the picture. Also, the guy looks nothing like Patton, and the photo is reversed, so I'm going to remove it. Good catch, Ramon4. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * good faith, but bad catch actually.
 * 1) the LOC only identifies three people in the front row in that crowded picture. no one in the second row is identified. that doesn't change who is there.
 * 2) the LOC image is the 'reversed' one: note it is a glass plate negative. that's one thing LOC *does* specify about this image. notice how pershing's campaign ribbon bar is on the 'wrong' side in the LOE image. the WP one has been reversed (or de-reversed i suppose), but that is what makes it more 'correct'.
 * Cramyourspam (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

D'Este agrees with the above. Patton would have been in Ft. Bliss in Kansas in the fall of 1914, not at Ft. Bliss near El Paso, where this photo was taken. Patton did not make it to his Ft. Bliss "border protection" assignment until Sept. 1915 (as noted above), and one presumes (though have not read it anywhere) that this was where he first met Pershing, who had commanded Ft. Bliss since April 1914. BTW, for the same time reasons I would guess that the photo in question was not taken in 1913, but 1914 after April 1914 when Pershing arrived in Texas. And probably in August. D'Este notes that Pershing's wife and children (his entire family) died in an unfortunate housefire in the Presidio in San Francisco, just before going to join Pershing at Ft. Bliss, on Aug. 27, 1915. Among the letters of condolence to Pershing was one from Villa, suggesting that the two men had just met. Anyway, we should fix the caption to remove Patton, and somebody needs to come up with a photo date to fix the 1913 date it has affixed to it the Library of Congress (supposedly). S B Harris 20:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So you do agree that there's no convincing proof that it's Patton? Also, while I'm not familiar with LOC practices, I would expect it to identify someone as famous as Patton, regardless of how crowded the photo is. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The original photo is held by the Regents of the University of California. http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb3c6008kp/?layout=metadata&brand=calisphere  The photo is well documented to have been taken on 27 August, 1914.  Villa and Obregón were Constitutionalist generals, and they had just driven Victoriano Huerta into exile.  However, the victorious Constitutionalist began quarreling among themselves.  First Chief Carranza ordered Villa and Obregón to the state of Sonora to see if they could defuse a quarrel there.  The easiest way to Nogalas, Sonora was to travel north up the central rail to Ciudad Juárez and El Paso, and from there, on an American train to Nogalas, Arizona.  Diplomatic protocol required that Villa and Obregón check-in with the military authorities at Ft. Bliss before they continue on their travels.  This is well documented in books about the Mexican Revolution.


 * I think that unless someone can document that Patton was in El Paso at this time, the photo should be removed from this article. Does this photo appear in any biography of Patton?  Does any biography of Patton indicate he was visiting El Paso at this time?  The only biography I have read indicates Patton was an instructor at Ft. Riley, Kansas, and that he did not become acquainted with Pershing until the fall of 1915.  Therefore, the tall young man to the side of Pershing is not Patton.


 * Incidentally, my readings indicate while Pershing was the commanding general residing at Ft. Bliss, his command also included Ft. Riley, so Patton would have been a subordinate of Pershing. It is entirely possible that Patton was on a temporary assignment at Ft. Bliss just as Villa and Obregón were passing through, but where is the documentation?Ramon4 (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. So the photo was taken in Texas Aug 27, 1914, a year to the day before Pershing's entire family died by fire in the Bay Area in California, Aug 27, 1915. Which explains why Pershing still looks happy. And still why Villa sends him condolences a year latter. Anyway, I'm going to be bold an remove the comment that Patton (who won't arrive for more than another 12 months) is in the photo. But since the paragraph talks about Ft. Bliss, and Pershing and Villa, I think it should be left in the article as illustration for the same reason the cars are. It's hard to imagine these people without photos of them. I'll fix the timeline. Patton arrives at Bliss Sept, 1915, but it's not until he shows his trademark "already packed" enthusiasm about the punitive raid in March, 1916 that Pershing not only allows him to go on the raid, but takes him on as his personal aide to help organize it. That's 6 months after Patton arrived at Ft. Bliss. S  B Harris 23:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism.
I noticed that this passage:

"...insisted on the presence of some black officers as judges of military tribunals involving black defendants; and spent more time with his African-American aide, Sergeant Meeks, than with almost anyone else while in Europe, developing a relationship of mutual respect that transcended that of a general and his valet. Patton hated the British, but in fact was more appreciative of Montgomery's organizational talents than was either Bradley or Eisenhower."

corresponds almost exactly to the relevant passage on its | source page. Is this considered plagiarism? After clicking the link, you may have to elide "%7C" from the end of the URL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I, Englishman (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

letter from one of the slapped soldiers
My father, a WWII sailor, mentioned that one of the soldiers Patton slapped had written home that Patton's conduct towards him helped him to recover. The soldiers parents tried to make known their son's remarks but they were ignored.

71.20.4.90 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Barbara
 * Some sources make note of a letter from one soldier to his parents, but that he had asked them to "just forget about it." See the article on George S. Patton slapping incidents for more information. — Ed! (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Slapping Incident and Anti-Semitism
the soldier General George S.Patton slapped was of Jewish descent and that Patton called him a yellow-bellied or yellow-streaked Jew http://books.google.com/books?id=RRolDuahqPMC&pg=PA791&dq=patton+yellow+bellied+jew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TShoUbrOKPe24APo-YHIBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=patton%20yellow%20bellied%20jew&f=false --Gary123 (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that an unsubstantiated allegation? The columnist later retracted.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Patton slapped two different soldiers, and I've never read whether either of them were Jewish. From what I've read, Patton's anti-Semitism didn't become an issue until after the war, when he was serving as military governor of Bavaria.97.73.64.146 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, he was very liberal in his use of offensive language, including racial slurs, to just about every race. — Ed! (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Patton's date of birth is wrong
I noticed that Patton's date if birth is listed as 1995. This is not correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.161.255 (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to be more specific.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A vandal had changed 1885 to 1995 about six hours before the above post, and the change was not corrected for about 58 minutes. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eek! I shoulda checked the article history.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge
The Third Army vehicles could not have covered a combined distance of 1,500,000 miles. The Earth isn't large enough to allow this to happen.70.191.235.223 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Patton certainly was a genius of maneuver and logistics, covering the distance of three trips to the moon and back in just a few days. In an abundance of caution, I'm going to remove that statement until someone can verify the number of zeroes on that number. guanxi (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so hard. With 133,000 vehicles, each had to travel an average of 11.2 miles to make 1.5 million. It's in the cited ref also.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Gaarmy vet. "combined distance" in this instance is clear in that it's referring to the distance all the vehicles traveled, combined. — Ed! (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it is not clear, as multiple people here don't understand it. Instead of simply inserting clarifying text, Gaarmyvet reverts. Looking back to Dec. 2011, I'd estimate that 75% of Gaarmyvet's contributions to this article are reversions of other editors' work. I just read a post on Hacker News about the frustrations of dealing with editors' poor behavior on Wikipedia; I just had to look back at this article and see if it happened again. :) guanxi (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a better form of wording you might suggest? — Ed! (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And if you, User:Guanxi, go back and actually LOOK at my reversion you'll see that I explained my rationale and pointed out that the statement is in the cited reference. If you have a problem with my conduct, I invite you to discuss it with me on my talk page.From the evidence here, "multiple people" adds to a grand total of two. Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  14:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Article White-Washes Patton's Racism
How is there no mention of Patton's anti-Semitism in this article? Or his other racist beliefs, other than the soft-pedaling of his views on African-Americans. This is shameful. His diaries are full of examples of not only racism, but racial hatred.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a cooperative effort; write something.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  12:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made enough contributions to Wikipedia (thousands) to know when an article is being closely watched by partisans and is being whitewashed. I've gone through that before. It's a thankless task. Whatever I would write would be deleted immediately by some hawk watching over this article like mother bird over its eggs.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article covers his disparate remarks to many races, with about the same weight relative to the rest of the content as the rest of his biographies. — Ed! (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On my reading of this article, I find nothing white-washed about Patton's gut level racist feelings. He was so outspoken it would be difficult not to expose these issues. I think the article as of this date is fair and due in this regard. Juan Riley (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Tactics versus Strategy
There are quite a few references in the article regarding Patton's 'strategies' and how effective they were. I think the references should be about his 'tactics'. Strategy and tactics in war are quite different things. I really doubt that Patton knew what a 'stratgey' was. Montgomery was the master of 'strategy' during the Second World War yet in both Scicily and Western Europe Patton had absolutely no understanding at all about Montgomery's strategy. This was in spite of Montgomery explaining his strategies to Patton in detail on numerous occaisions. In fact Pattons 'tactics' were, on a number of occaisions, incredibly damaging to the Allied 'strategy'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.196.210 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As Eisenhower notes, Patton was only one actor in a larger plan. I agree Patton's impact on Allied strategy merits some inclusion, but given the article's already exceptional size it might not belong on his bio page. As far as I've seen, the focus of the bio page is on the individual and his actions; the overarching Allied strategy belongs on a wider article. — Ed! (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering Monty's plan in Sicily failed and Patton beat him to Messina, and Montgomery did not close the Falaise Gap allowing much of the German army to escape (if they had let Patton go, he probably would have closed it,) and the abject failure of Market-Garden which resulted in thousands of dead British Troops and hundreds taken prisoner, "master strategist" just doesn't fly in describing Montgomery and sounds more like hero-worship rather than what most Reliable Sources say. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the article establishes any opinion of Montgomery. — Ed! (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect Hammerfilmfan either hasn’t read his history or he has relied too heavily on the semi historical novels of the likes of Stephen Ambrose. In Normandy the 7th and 5th panzer armies and 1st and 15th armies totaling 50 divisions (over 1 million men) were deployed against the Allies. After the battle was over, which included the Falise pocket, there were 10 German divisions left that were reasonable fighting formations. The Germans lost 210,000 POW’s and 240,000 killed or wounded. This was Germany’s most costly defeat in any single battle during the entire war. To quote Milton Shulman - a proper historian - “the Sienne had been reached two weeks ahead of schedule and the broad strategical battle had been fought exactly as planned”. As for Sicily the Germans were defeated exactly as Montgomery planned except that the Royal Navy wouldn’t go into the Straits of Messina to cut off their escape. Patton reached Messina a few hours before Montgomery – so what. He would have got there a bit sooner had he not disobeyed orders and headed off to Palermo just so he could have a parade there in his own honor just to gratify his narcissistic personality. Market Garden was strategically sound but tactically flawed. However to say it was an abject failure is just plain wrong and shows no understanding at all about what happened. Although, I suspect at this stage of the war Montgomery was probably past his best. He had been a battlefield commander at war for five continuous years and it had probably taken its toll. So maybe Hammerfilmfan should stick to his B grade horror movies and not comment on something he knows nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.13.117 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are an uneducated kiwi with a huge case of hero-worship for Monty.

Yes, I agree with you entirely. I guess my thoughts were more along the lines that whilst Patton was a very good tactician he was a poor strategist. As a result, in todays parlance, he wouldn't be considered a good 'team player'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.196.210 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look through to ensure the distinction between "Patton tactics" and "Allied strategy" is clearer. — Ed! (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to think of an example of Patton's strategy at all. None that were put into practice at any rate. Mostly what hew practiced is what we now call operational art; but there were some genuine tactics, such as his preference for marching fire. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is some confusion about "strategy" and "tactics". In modern terms, there are three levels of planning that a commander and staff would be engaged in: "strategy", which is how to deploy forces and conduct warfare in order to achieve overall political goals; "operational", which concerns the movements and goals of large, mostly independent forces (corps or army level); and "tactics" which address how to use actual weapons systems, time of day, line of sight, and so on. In today's parlance, Patton was an operational-level genius. HOWEVER, that term was not used in the US military until the 1980s. In WW2, there was some confusion over what term to use, and often it was called "minor strategy".

Patton was certainly more than just a "tactics guy". He perfected tactical-level movements such as using forward air controllers up front with all his armored formations. But he also specialized in higher-level movements such as re-deploying whole corps into a different direction while engaged in combat along with the adjustments to logistics in order to achieve theater-level goals.

By this definition, Montgomery is also not a high-level strategist, but an operational-level general. In the terms of the time, both Montgomery and Patton would be "corps or army commanders".Pete71 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is the assassination not seen as an improvement?
My request for the article improved by adding very important history has not been given. It was also said to not be an improvement. Why has this not been done? A prominent broadcaster that sells millions of books is releasing a book on the Jewish assassination of Patton over his notice findings of Jewish subversion in the US. It seems like the original article is completely false and both stories should be given. The assassin even came forward. Please try to keep history fact and not involve other motives. There have been several books released on the subject as well as a prominent Nobel Physicist going public. It seems ultimately paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.156 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well let's hear some Reliable Sources that give that as fact. Because I read that he was attacked by the OSS but when that didn't work they got him to contract pneumonia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I heard they gave him pneumonia because the poison the Russians were injecting into him at the US Army hospital did not work. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're going to need a lot of reliable sources to put some weight behind this IP's theory. — Ed! (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A book written by a conspiracy theorist (O'Reilly) is not a credible source.Flight Risk (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. With high-profile people like this, there will always be speculation to some degree. We'd need to see a serious, academic discussion or a notable number of sources at least examining the idea to include it here. — Ed! (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Combined Distance
In the section on the Battle of the Bulge, there is a sourced sentence: Within a few days, more than 133,000 Third Army vehicles were re-routed into an offensive that covered a combined distance of 1,500,000 miles (2,400,000 km), followed by support echelons carrying 62,000 tonnes (61,000 long tons; 68,000 short tons) of supplies.

"Combined distance" is a truly strange, derived measure. I'm deleting it. Did the vehicles cover about 100 miles each? That would be useful for the reader to know, but I do not have access to the source cited. Jd2718 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your concern is understandable, but the sentence served a purpose. It was constructed after someone complained that the 3d Army could not possible have traveled a million and a half miles on the Earth. Please restore with your own version of the improved sentence. "... an average distance per vehicle..." or something like that.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was at first going to do that, then was concerned that it would be a "synthesis" - let's go ahead and see if there's any objection. Jd2718 (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Works for me!-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  14:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with that. — Ed! (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Great. Except, if the original numbers (1,500,000 miles / 133,000 vehicles) are correct, the average distance is not the stated 100 miles, but rather something like 11.25 miles – a figure that seems much less meaningful individualized than the aggregate used previously.


 * Does anyone have a copy of the McNeese book to verify what it actually said? 2600:1006:B12E:AF89:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that "Combined distance" is a term which is probably unique to this instance of Patton re-routing forces, to make it seem significant - but nobody else uses the figure for other force movements, so it's impossible to use it qualitatively or comparatively. I suggest removing it entirely, it's unhelpful. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Flag officer/general officer
See Flag officer.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the more universally specific "general officer" seems to make sense to me. The meaning, in this case, is the same.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Flag officer sits more comfortably in the context. SovalValtos (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To readers outside the US and India (for example, Great Britain), "general officer" is probably less confusing and works fine where flag officer is not just a naval term. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we're referencing Axelrod, I think the issue comes down to what did he write? I don't have a copy of Axelrod, but I've put the copy at the local library on reserve.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  23:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think its necessary to use the word precisely used by Axelrod. We don't have to quote exactly.  In American English, the two (apparently) are synonymous.  In some other forms of English, "general officer" means what Marshall must have been thinking more than "flag officer" (Marshall wasn't going to promote him to Admiral).  To me, "general officer" is clearest to more readers and still reflects what the source says. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless Axelrod was quoting Marshall. "Flag officer" was in use before the page was edited. We just need to determine if there's a reason the previous term was used.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  03:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The two terms flag officer and general officer are not directly interchangeable. With the phrase concerned "Patton a prime candidate for flag officer rank in the armed forces", the use of 'flag officer' is fine, but if general is to be used it would read better if the phrase were changed to "Patton a prime candidate for general's rank" omitting officer. A further clue that flag might be better is that it is the armed forces in total that are being referred to in the original phrase, not just the army. It does not particularly bother me either way, as long as it is well written. In Great Britain Flag Officer is understood, and if there are some that do not understand it, that is what the wikilink is for.SovalValtos (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I could be simpler. I've gone ahead with: "There, he met Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, who was so impressed with him that Marshall considered Patton a prime candidate for promotion to general." Feel free to revise as you see fit! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Axelrod used "...promotion to brigadier general." I hink we're good with the current text (post above). Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  16:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk   for going to the trouble of reserving Axelrod from the library and checking it out for all of us.SovalValtos (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This particular allegation of anti-Semitism is not supported.

 * The article reads: After World War II, Patton expressed anti-Semitism and treated Jews badly in the former concentration camps – called displaced persons camps after the war – that he ran for the United States. According to the New York Times, Patton wrote into his journal that people believe “the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals....” 

He was a blunt spoken, judgemental, and frequently unsympathetic person, a "warrior" who had a fascination for war and warriors. He slapped a soldier and called him a coward when medical opinion would have it that such soldiers suffer medical/psychological conditions that require treatment. Him saying that the "displaced persons" he observed who came out of the concentration camps appeared to him subhuman (and giving examples such as indiscriminate defecation) while at the same time according respect to enemy soldiers (as has been quite traditional all through history)... well, this is not fairly classified as an expression of anti-Semitism. There may be other examples of anti-Semitism, feel free to cite them, but I'll bet Patton would have tremendous respect for the Israeli military and the victories it has achieved over the years. He was a complex (and yet simplistic) figure, and this example is an unfair characterization. The section should be reworded to say insensitive, or to say "could be construed as anti-Semitic", but to claim it is an expression of anti-Semitism seems unsupported. 68.173.49.156 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the first sentence is misconstruing the circumstances. The source says the Jews in the displaced persons camps were not treated any better than the Nazi prisoners or other displaced persons but the rest is true. Here's the full context of the quote:
 * ''“Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals,” Patton wrote. He complained of how the Jews in one camp, with “no sense of human relationships,” would defecate on the floors and live in filth like lazy “locusts,” and he told of taking his commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to tour a makeshift synagogue set up to commemorate the holy day of Yom Kippur.
 * “We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking mass of humanity I have ever seen,” Patton wrote. “Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act.” Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've generally tried to be careful of over-emphasizing single quotes from his diary. He kept extensive thoughts and often had conflicting and contradictory statements, especially on race. For that, it's best to stick to more wholesale scholarly analysis of all of the evidence, instead of a few quotes. — Ed! (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry detail dispute
I'm not thinking the extensive coverage of ancestry is especially important to the article. There's a lot of coverage of it, of course, but I am having a hard time seeing it relevant in the body of the article without violating WP:TRIVIA. A list of distant relatives is of very marginal importance, especially when we're talking about an article as extensive as this one, where far more important subjects have less detail. Perhaps it would be better as a footnote? — Ed! (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am of the same opinion as Ed. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. it perhaps reflects a nativist POV that says newcomers are inferior to Great Men who have Great Ancestors. Rjensen (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Commentator's quote: "I'm not thinking the extensive coverage of ancestry is especially important to the article" Based on what? It was especially important to the subject of the article. A driving force, which influenced his every decision. Every detailed source, discusses his ancestry, and all, state the reason. D'Este, labelled an entire section 'Ancestry of Heroes"

D'Este: "With Georgie cuddling most nights in the warm sanctuary of Papa's arms, soaking up the Patton family legends that were dispensed with almost evangelistic fervor, it is hardly surprising that by the age of perhaps, seven, he was hopelessly seduced by the conviction that his life and destiny lay in perpetuating the Patton family name" Trivia?

D'Este: "Part and parcel of Patton's immersion in ancestor worship was the notion, which grew into an absolute article of faith, that a dishonourable death, meant a life wasted."

D'Este: "In his 1927 family memoir, he idolized his Patton ancestors to the total exclusion of those on his mother's side."

D'Este: "When he wrote that their valorous deeds were performed 'by men of my blood and....it is they who inspired me....it is my sincere desire that any of my blood who read these lines will be similarly inspired and ever be true to the heroic traditions of their race"

D'Este: "and the Patton Colonels of VMI, who died a warrior heroes death, became symbols to cherish and emulate. Hugh Mercer, the revolutionary war icon, also received his due. And finally there was the living exemplar, his beloved step-grandfather, Col. George Hugh Smith.....instilled a profound sense of destiny in the young man. Smith's presence during Patton's youth, may well have been the most important influence on his decision to become a soldier and to serve the Patton name." Trivia?

Commentators quote: "it perhaps reflects a nativist POV that says newcomers are inferior to Great Men who have Great Ancestors" This is your own personal conclusion and a contradiction. If such a conclusion can be reached, how is that trivia? You should not be allowed, to deny the reader, the ability to come to their own conclusions, simply because you dislike and/or disagree with that conclusion.

His ancestral beliefs, explains, to a large degree, Patton's repulsive anti-semitism and Russian/Japanese comments. This is my personal conclusion, so I don't add it, into the article, nor do I omit his ancestral beliefs, to disguise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.149.144 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts! And I would agree, in writing this article, that D'Este did much more to focus on Patton's personal beliefs and motivations. Axelrod, Blumenson and Brigton tended to focus more strongly on Patton's military thinking, but D'Este did a great job fleshing out what Patton, the man, was really like. It's for that reason D'Este is heavily cited.


 * In this case, It's not really a matter of disagreeing with the information being suggested; it's a matter of weighing it against all of the other information and deciding what's really important to include in the article with space constraints. Patton is written about extensively in every aspect of his life. At the end of the day, though, the reason he is notable is solely because of his military achievements. Which is why the article has been formed so strongly toward covering those. The article, I think, has placed appropriate weight on his controversial views on race and religion, though there is plenty more information out there. We could also delve more into his extramarital affairs, again they're widely covered, but our job isn't to cover everything extensively. The average person comes to the page wanting to know Patton's military accomplishments. While his motivations are key to understanding him, you notice again that most historians have far more to say about his military career. Politely, we want people who are interested in learning the finer details of Patton's ancestry and beliefs to go read D'Este's book, not to expect this page to give all the minor details by itself, when the exacting details of his family roots play a small part in the military strategies that made him notable. Our job as an encyclopedia is to curate and create a useful summary of what's out there.


 * This is just a matter of weighing all that we have with the need to keep the article a reasonable, usable size (WP:SIZE) and giving weight to the most important parts of the subject (WP:WEIGHT). It's for that reason I think extensive detail on his family background is better presented as a footnote. — Ed! (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand the point, you are making and agree with it. If his ancestral background, went beyond a paragraph, It should be deleted. The reason, for the small amount of detail, that is written in the article, is to alert the reader, to paraphrase your point, use wikipedia as a Springboard to more detailed research.

As a side note: The real enemy of this article is unsourced, completely unverified, conspiracy theories(e.g Assassination), and/or a  lack of warts and all, entries(re anti-semitism) etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.149.144 (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Redundancies
The first paragraph contains multiple redundancies in the form of repeated sentences as if someone for got to cut as they copied and pasted in reorganizing the paragraph68.190.212.211 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Time of death
Did he die "following" the accident or "in" it? There is a difference. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it works better to say he never recovered from the accident--he died 12 days later. Rjensen (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the lead to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. "Patton died in Germany on December 21, 1945, as a result of injuries from an automobile accident twelve days earlier." ( Hohum  @ ) 13:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Descent from English barons.
What Rice says, quoting Blumenson, is: "Even farther in the dim recesses of time were sixteen barons who signed the Magna Carta . . . . all of whom the Pattons believed were their direct ancestors."

It would also be interesting to hear how one person can be descended from 16 ancestors. Hengistmate (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably thought each was a great-great-x-grandparent. Though I would prefer to keep the wording in line with what the source says to avoid making any assumptions. — Ed! (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that would involve a remarkable number of cousins marrying over many generations. But its implausibility doesn't matter. The source says that it was the Patton family's belief, not a fact. Keeping the wording in line with what the source says is an admirable idea, and is Wikipedia policy in a nutshell. Hengistmate (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This may be one of those things where all we can do is report what they believed--not the plausibility of it. That said, this is an addition after I got this article to FA, I believe, so I haven't seen the source. — Ed! (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have Blumenson, but I can direct you to Earle Rice's quote from it here. Mind you, Rice says that Patton was "at Cambrai" when the British launched the 1917 battle of that name, whereas we know beyond doubt that he wasn't. Hengistmate (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Spinal Traction.
If Patton never complained about being in pain during the procedure, what grounds are there to believe that he was? Hengistmate (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Source only states that he never complained about being in pain. I don't see if as saying he was or was not. — Ed! (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is worth including? ( Hohum  @ ) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try again. The article says, "Although in some pain from this procedure (which I interpret as meaning that he was in some pain), he reportedly never complained about it." So if he never complained about it, how do we know he was? All we know is that he, reportedly, never complained about being in pain. Why is it worth including? It isn't, for several reasons. Hengistmate (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll cut it if it doesn't seem relevant. — Ed! (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Greetings,  I saw your discussion with User:Hengistmate on the Talk page about possibly eliminating the passage indicating Patton never complained about the pain from spinal traction.  I guess I didn't get to weigh in in time.  I don't see it as irrelevant at all: it is descriptive of Patton's apparent condition, and indicative of how the man handled it.  He didn't complain; that reflects who is was. We can only guess at how much or little pain he was in, but we do know only what was...excised.  It belongs in the article.  All best.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC). Copied here by Hengistmate (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have quite a few problems here. Perhaps one of them is adulation getting in the way of objectivity, something we have difficulty with in respect of another significant figure who does have some WWI connection with Patton.

Let's look at the contentious statement: "Although in some pain from this procedure, he reportedly never complained about it."

Where is the WP:RS that he was in pain? Where is the source for the "report" that he never complained? That's peacocking by Wikipedia's criteria. I repeat: if he didn't complain about being in pain, how do we know he was? At the moment, I'm not complaining about being in pain, because I'm not in pain. That doesn't establish anything either way. Wikiuser100 comments, "We can only guess at how much or little pain he was in." Exactly. It might have been none. We don't know, because he never complained. "Descriptive of Patton's apparent condition:" apparent to whom?

If it is the case that sources say that spinal traction is known to be a painful procedure, we could state that "nevertheless Patton never complained," provided, of course, that we have a citation that he didn't complain. But that still doesn't establish beyond doubt that he was in pain, merely that he never complained. If we have a source that says Patton appeared to be in some pain, then we can say, "Although apparently in some pain . . ." But we haven't got sources for any of this. It sounds like a bit of hero-worship, another vague example of Patton being a tough nut, of which we already have plenty. Without some sources, this statement can't go in as it is. Hengistmate (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, and I think it would be a bit of a distraction to discuss the condition at length and his reaction to it; his personality is already well established in the article, and it would probably take additional sources on spinal traction that are not related to Patton. — Ed! (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Poor referencing
For example, the opening paragraph has no references whatsoever. The whole article is poorly referenced and comes across as something direct from a poor History Channel documentary. 94.192.60.189 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 2600:1006:B14D:A3C0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense – with over 200 footnotes, the essay is very well referenced, and includes the latest and best scholarship. By Wikipedia rules, the opening paragraph or lead normally does not have footnotes, because it is a summary of the rest of the article. Rjensen (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Poorly referenced. That is clear. The German High Command needs citation. 94.192.60.189 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RTFA
 * The citation has sent footnote 133 -- our critic simply did not read that far. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Assassination conspiracy theory and Bill O'Reilly
A recent edit I made to this article, one regarding the seemingly unusual circumstances surrounding Patton's death, was subsequently reverted, and fair enough: I didn't even realize that the "Bill O'Reilly" I had cited was THE Bill O'Reilly of political agendas extraordinaire and dubious editorializing. I have no problem with the edit being reverted. My question, though, is this: is the content of Mr. O'Reilly's book regarded as inaccurate? Is it "false"? He mentions several specific details regarding what he treats as the "known facts" surrounding Patton's death-- did he make these (some or all) up? Is the story he put together based on inaccuracies? Because if the facts of the story are accurate (things like records having been burned and lost, mix-ups over whether or not the driver of the truck was drunk at the time of the accident, the number of people reportedly in the cab of the truck, the location of the turnoff for the quartermaster's depot, etc.) then perhaps that story is worth telling... Even if it does come through the mouth of O'Reilly. Is there any consensus on the facts? And on a side note, I think it might also be worthwhile to address the fact that a conspiracy theory exists, if only to point out that Bill O'Reilly, a highly notable and high-profile if scary individual-- is putting it out there. I don't think that ignoring the existence of such a theory improves the article, even if the discussion of the theory is cursory and dismissive. Yes? Just a thought. KDS 4444 Talk  19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * people who believe O'Reilly will believe anything--it does not matter what Wikipedia says. To make sense of O'Reilly's model there have to be multiple incompetent people with opposing motivations & politics trying and failing to kill Patton at the same time, all in order to sell books 70 years later. Rjensen (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * O'Reilly isn't a reliable historian or biographer, so there is no reason to include his opinion. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to accuracy, we look to reliable sources to have a good sense of what is important and what is not. While there might be some anomalies reported, their importance can be exaggerated without appropriate restraint. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Interwar Period
It bothers me how the article uses the phrase 'inter-war period' rather than 'interregnum'. There should be an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggy23woggy4 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be a REAL issue if "inter-war period" and "interregnum" meant the same thing.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  18:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

article should be NPOV on his so-called anti-semitism
This article expresses the POV that Patton was anti-Semitic. My POV is that Patton was not anti-Semitic, or at least not notably so given the standards of the time (meaning, if you want the article to say he was as anti-semitic as the average American, go ahead, but I think it's POV to imply, as the article does, that he was more anti-semitic than avg; he was more outspoken than avg, blunt in reporting what he saw, and what he saw were dehumanized concentration camp victims who the avg person didn't see). As a very notable person with an extensive documentation, I think this article could try a little harder to present facts in a neutral tone, and also not use weasel phrases to exaggerate the situation; "after the war" and "later in his life"... The concentration camps were liberated in the last year of the war, the situation in Germany segued immediately from war to military occupation and gradual demobilization and he died in Germany, on duty before the year was out: that's not exactly later in life or after the war. The last time this issue came up on the talk page, the discussion was immediately archived. Why? Was somebody afraid to discuss the facts? 96.246.59.19 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: "The last time this issue came up on the talk page, the discussion was immediately archived. Why? Was somebody afraid to discuss the facts?" Could you point to where you think an inappropriate archive occured. I see no sign of one.  Parts of the page were archived on the day some discussion was made, but the anti-Semitism thread was not archived at that time. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Patton's 1918 Wound.
Writings about Patton, possibly even this one somewhere, describe his amusing habit at social gatherings of dropping his trousers to expose his buttocks, and declaring himself a "half-assed general." It is difficult to make the connection between that and a "leg wound" as described in the text. I feel that a fuller description of the wound enables the reader to understand that some muscle loss took place, hence the aptness of Patton's epithet. Hengistmate (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

date of birth discrepancy
In the box it says he was born in 1900 which in incorrect. The correct date of birth is stated correctly in the early life section. Due to my lack of editing skills, I'm just gonna alert any capable person to make the change. Thank you. 2.89.233.28 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like the error was from a raid by a vandal. Someone fixed it.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  18:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge
The article quotes: "Patton's ability to disengage six divisions from front line combat during the middle of winter, then wheel north to relieve Bastogne was one of his most remarkable achievements during the war." IMHO this has to be discussed, read Anthony Beevor's Ardennes 1944, chapter 19. Patton's regroup of forces at December 19-22 is according to Beevor beyond doubt ingenious, however his actions afterwards directed to Bastogne were not optimal. Furthermore this line from the article "On December 21 Patton met with Bradley to review the impending advance, starting the meeting by remarking, "Brad, this time the Kraut's stuck his head in the meat grinder, and I've got hold of the handle.""; according to Beevor this took place at December 26, as Patton approaches Bastogne. I am not so familiair with the English language to edit this correctly and besides that, I think more resources has to be found, before editing the legacy of this remarkable general. PaulSeveral (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ultra
The article makes the claim that in August 1944 Patton was briefed daily on Ultra intelligence by his G-2 Col Koch. This is misleading, since it implies that Patton was an 'Ultra': one of the very short list of people cleared to receive undisguised Ultra intelligence and to know its source. He was not, because he was far too unreliable. Col Koch was not an Ultra either. Koch received Ultra information, without knowing its source, from Major Melvin Helfers, of the British Army's 'special liaison unit' with Third Army HQ. Patton's in-the-dark status can be gauged from the fact that, around 20:00 on 6 August 1944, Maj Helfers and Col Koch visited Patton's command trailer to tell him about the impending German counter-attack at Mortain, which threatened to cut his supply line, and he asked Koch in some amazement, 'How much of this have we been getting? How long has this officer' - meaning Major Helfers, who he'd never seen before in his life, because Helfers' role was secret - 'been with us?'

Patton wrote in his diary, 'We got a rumor last night from a secret source that several Panzer divisions would attack west from Mortain to Avranches. Personally, I think it is a German bluff to cover a withdrawal, but I stopped the 80th, French 2nd Armored and the 85th in the vicinity of St Hilaire just in case something might happen.' In fact, apart from the briefing by Helfers and Koch, he had had a phone call from Bradley telling him to stop those three divisions, and Bradley was an Ultra. (Alwyn Featherston, Saving the Breakout, Presidio Press, Novato CA 1993, pbk as Battle For Mortain 1998, p.72, citing Robert A. Miller, August 1944, Warner Books NY 1988, pp.69-71, and Omar N. Bradley and Clay Blair, A General's Life, Simon & Schuster NY 1983, p.292.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"our blood, his guts"
I marked this citation needed because I suspected it was just taken from the movie. Axelrod reports it as "His guts. Our blood." Is this close enough, or should it be changed? No doubt the first version (from the movie) was used too. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

World War I - Conner vs Eltinge
In #World War I, it states that "Patton met Colonel Fox Conner, who encouraged him to work with tanks over infantry". This would be incorrect as per sources. Apparently Colonel Fox Conner encouraged Patton to pursue a career as infantry major and to "ditch the tank business", while it was Colonel Eltinge who asked Patton to head the tank school. Banjo (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

War with USSR
What about Patton's plan to invade the Soviet Union in 1945? (Nsjsksl (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Mentioned his idea of invading USSR in the post-war section. — Ed! (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Assassination?
Recently, evidence has arisen to suggest that Patton may have been assassinated by the NKVD in collaboration with the US Secret Service. It has been claimed that Patton was going to expose mistakes made by Dwight D. Eisenhower which led to the deaths of thousands of American troops. The allegations were made in Robert Wilcox's 1999 book Target Patton on the basis of testimony from ex-marksman Douglas Bazata, who is said to have orchestrated the car crash. It is alleged that, during the crash, Patton was hit by a projectile in the neck, which would explain the extent of his injuries compared to the others in the car. It has also been shown that the car shown on display in the Patton Museum was not the car driven on the day of Patton's accident, which has led Wilcox to believe that a Government cover-up took place to disguise the intent behind Patton's death. When the accident did not kill Patton, it is said that he was poisoned by NKVD officials.

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html

seems like something which definitely ought to be mentioned. Hommedeterre1 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your attempt is possibly tainted by the stupid (imho) book Killing Patton that came out earlier. At any rate, the subject doesn't seem to have any traction in mainstream media. I think a newspaper article about a book which is available on line makes a poor reference.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  16:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not, IMHO, a legitimate use of a newspaper as a source. It's not as if the Telegraph itself is reporting this through investigative journalism, it's just an article about the book. The book itself (again IMHO), is not a reliable source. Multiple, additional, reliable sources, independent of this book, claiming that Patton's accident was actually an assassination stemming from a conspiracy within the highest levels of the military and government, with facts, would be required here. And, a solid consensus for inclusion. - the WOLF  child  18:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * An argument that Patton was assassinated on the orders of "Wild Bill" Donovan in order to protect Eisenhower's reputation and with assistance from the NKVD is certainly novel... I agree that it shouldn't be included unless it's endorsed by experts on this topic per WP:FRINGE. The British media has an unfortunate habit of uncritically repeating far-fetched claims about World War II made in new books. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there are few "experts" on the topic of the death of Patton. Anyone familiar with the long time, close and personal friendship between Eisenhower and Patton, as well as (familiar with) Patton's close professional relationship with Eisenhower, will find it impossible to believe Patton ever had any plans to expose some few perceived errors in judgment on the part of Eisenhower.  Patton was far more intellectual than he is ever given credit, and he realized, and wrote about how any overall successful decision made by a commanding officer during War will come with positive and negative consequences.  Second guessing his U.S. Military superior's was not something Patton would make public.  He did second guess overall political/philosophical themes by people like President Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, but that is different.  Wild Bill Donovan had no reason, therefore, to protect Eisenhower in any way from Patton.  Wild Bill Donovan was an alleged double agent working for the British, while officially reporting to Pres. Roosevelt.  Donovan had himself to protect, along with Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.  A point that has been (perhaps) obliterated by the Wikipedia process of "reliable sources" is that among U.S. Military people just after Patton's death, as well as for some time thereafter, talk and rumors of a plot to "take care of" Patton were everywhere.  It is well known that Patton saw Stalin's growing power as being a huge mistake allowed by Churchill and Roosevelt.  If anything/anyone  was to be protected from Patton's pen-strokes, it was the naivety of Churchill and Roosevelt, as well as the growing power of Stalin.  Wild Bill Donovan, or someone like him in the counterpart Soviet role, would have everything to gain from the untimely death of Patton.  People like Donovan had Churchill and Roosevelt's interests to protect, while Stalin had his own interests to be protected.  Donovan and/or some Soviet counterpart would be much to smart to leave any trail, or evidence, of any plot against Patton.  People like Donovan had the power, and ability, to make evidence simply disappear.  I find the evidence surrounding the actual crash to be quite an implication of at least a powerful cover up.  The arguments claiming confusion surrounding the actual accident, due to the winding down of the War, etc., are not believable when it is taken into account that General Patton was seriously injured in that accident, and any legitimate and unmolested investigation into such an accident involving such a tremendously important and worshipped "local" hero would have been conducted to a much greater level of professionalism than that which occurred.Bugatti35racer (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Concerning this subject an interesting article was published by Ron Unz (see here) JRB-Europe (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * indeed--the author praised by Unz has now moved well beyond small fry like Patton. The blurb on Amazon states: "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin offers new insight into this baffling mystery and offers compelling evidence that the shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus Christ." Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been said that Werwolf operatives strung piano wire across the road that Patton's jeep traveled. He subsequently died from neck injury. 173.72.63.96 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)42nd Rainbow Div
 * Yes but it is also said that US Army doctors sewed his head back on and he lived a few more weeks while plotting the invasion of Russia. Rjensen (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

denazification
The statement in the lead paragraph "but he was relieved of this post because of his statements on denazification" is vague & unclear -- what did he actually say? -- and is not explained further in the article. I don't know that it's significant enough to add more details to this already long article, but just changing that statement to "but he was relieved of this post because of his statements trivializing denazification" seems to clarify this.

I considered other words like denigrate or oppose, but that seems to indicate a more negative attitude than Patton showed. He just said that it was unimportant; similar to a disagreement between Democrats & Republicans. I also considered depreciate, but trivialize seemed a more common term for readers. Anybody have a better term to suggest? T-bonham (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is explained further in the article, as required by WP:LEAD:


 * Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

His sense of his ancestry was very important to shaping Patton's outlook
As his biographers point out, Patton himself repeatedly emphasized the central importance of his ancestry in defining his character as a warrior. For most people it is indeed a minor factor, but for Patton it's too important to ignore. The section follows the RS. For example 1) Willard Sterne Randall & ‎Nancy Nahra (2014) state: George Smith Patton, Jr., had few doubts, especially about himself. From his boyhood, he never doubted for a moment that he would be a soldier and a leader like so many of his ancestors, and that he would someday be a general and a hero. 2) Alden Hatch (2006) calls it the modern incarnation of the ancient virtues of his warrior ancestors. 3) Mostafa Rejai & ‎Kay Phillips (1996) write: Even as a boy George Patton had wanted to be a general and lead troops in battle. ... in an atmosphere of adulation for those in the family who had fallen in the War Between the States, with strong overtones of pride in their Virginia ancestry. 4) Lawrence R. Spencer (2008) writes: Patton was a staunch believer in reincarnation and, along with many other members of his family, often claimed to have seen vivid, lifelike visions of his ancestors.  5) Michael Keane (2012) writes: he was referring to his desire to die in battle, as his ancestors had done. 6) Jerome Corsi (2014) says when he was wounded in 1918 Patton imagined he saw the faces of his ancestors: Gen. Hugh Mercer, wounded at the battle of Princeton in the Revolutionary War; grandfather Col. George Patton, killed at Winchester in the Civil War etc etc Rjensen (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Assignment to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri in 1915?
In the section Pancho Villa Expedition the statement "He transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for a brief time later in 1915." is problematic. Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri did not exist in 1915 and in fact was not established until 1940. This is obviously an error and I would correct it, but I do not have access to the Zaloga reference to check what was actually meant by the statement. This needs corrected because this is a featured article and should be accurate to maintain that article classification. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The source does mention General Wood, who the fort was later named for, but obviously not the fort. I have removed the offending sentence. The source does support the revolver story so I left it in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)



Jr, III, and IV
A recent unexplained edit change Patton's birth name from Patton Jr to Patton III. This is incorrect and was rightly reverted.

As far as I can tell, this Patton was the third, but was not named Patton III. The first George Patton was George S. Patton Sr., the second was George S. Patton (attorney), the third was our Patton, and the fourth was George Patton IV.

This does leave a few loose ends that should be cleared up. First, George S. Patton III redirects here, which is wrong. There apparently was no III, although sources differ; see. Maybe this should instead redirect to George Patton (disambiguation).

Second, George S. Patton (attorney) needs some attention. This was the second Patton. This article needs more work than I can provide. It used to say he was "Patton Sr." but this is problematic because the first Patton's article also says he was "Patton Sr." The same anon IP who made the changes here also changed that article. He changed the "Sr" to "Jr", but also added "Patton III" which I think is wrong.

Finally, it looks like we have two people, the second and third George Pattons, who are both name Patton Jr. I don't know whether that is correct.

This is going to take a fair amount of tedious work to straighten out. I'm not really up to it but I hope one of you Patton-philes can tackle it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This provides some clarification, to an otherwise confusing situation. __209.179.29.116 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Invasion of the Soviet Union
Why is his plan to invade the Soviet Union in 1945 not mentioned? (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:3D0D:B7A0:14F8:BD0D (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC))


 * Which reliable secondary sources discuss it? I certainly think it should be mentioned if appropriately covered. MPS1992 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember reading about it in the Farago biography but that was a long time ago and I don't have a copy. Dlabtot (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Fox Conner told him *not* to be a tank commander
Article says

"While in a hospital for jaundice, Patton met Colonel Fox Conner, who encouraged him to work with tanks instead of infantry."

Could that be backwards?

I have a source saying the opposite:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yEGLBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA228 (axelrod, patton's drive, pg228)

"conner did not hesitate to counsel him to turn his back on tanks and ask instead to be made an infantry major. Conner was so persuasive that when Lt Col Eltinge visited Patton the next day, he was all ready to tell him that he had decided against the Tank Corps. But Eltinge spoke up first, announcing to Patton that a US tank school was to be opened at Langres as soon as November 15. ... To his diary on Nov 3, Patton confided: "Inspite of my resolution to the contrary I said yes." ... "I kept discussing it pro and con with Col. F. Conner," he wrote, "and again decided on Infantry." ... Yet when Patton was discharged from the hospital on Nov 3, he said nothing to Eltinge, and when he was ordered on Nov 10 to assume command of the tank school, he simply followed orders."

- Axelrod

Possibly also relevant that Conner was on the AEF tank board (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a192722.pdf, pdf p 13)

Abewinter (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Descended from England's King Edward I (aka 'Longshanks'). So what?
Being descended from Edward I, II or III is hardly notable. It's exceedingly common. He'll also be related to Charlemagne, .. and almost everyone else in 14th century Europe. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/not-just-danny-dyer-related-royalty-geneticist-says/ It's pointless chest beating and should be removed, (or, laughably, added to the biography of everyone else with european roots).(Hohum @ ) 19:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If one believes certain portrayals of Patton, it was probably very important to him. He thought he was Napoleon as well? I am not sure if that is a good reason for inclusion or not. MPS1992 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He was a believer in reincarnation, and that he lived previous lives as legendary military commanders from history and possibly even royalty (back when kings and emperors actually lead their armies). While such ancestry might not be notable for other BLPs, I would think it's relevant here. - the WOLF  child  22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. (Hohum @ ) 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

 * Hatred of Jews

Why is there no mention of his remarks about Jews? (ErnstPatsze (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC))
 * Do you have reliable sources for that? Or is this HarveyCarter again?(Hohum @ ) 13:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The end of the image section talks about antisemitism, racism and anticommunism views. — Ed! (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

G-Man?
In various places, the article refers to him as "G-1", "G-2", "G-3". These are staff departments, not positions held by individuals. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Rename discussion
There is a move discussion at Talk:Patton that may be of interest of editors here. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Accident and death
The movie, Last Days of Patton, portrays an order from Washington around 12/18/45 to have Patton moved home; his wife in the movie references Boston I believe. My father was a surgeon at a unit in Boston for spinal and brain injuries, and I recall him referencing a brief plan to have Patton moved home to his unit. I’d be happy to add mention of the plan but lack the references needed. The article looks good and I’m grateful for the work here. Hoppyh (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
Past versions of this article include cited references to Patton's anti-Semitic views. Why have they been removed? Admittedly they're not well written, but surely it would be better to revise rather than remove such information. Any objections to me adding them myself? Webster100 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Article Not Balanced
Patton refused to liaise with the Canadians at Faliase, moved away from Falaise then neglected to cut off retreating German forces at the Seine allowing thousand of German troops to escape. He ran off to Paris and Lorraine with pretty well no enemy forces in front of him. Ellis described it, and his move through Sicily, as "triumphal parades" rather than an advances.

Patton was "fast"? He took 3 months to move 10 miles at Metz. A 1985 US report totally criticised his performance in The Lorraine, homing in on his neglect of logistics and overrunning his supplies.

He was slow moving north to Bastogne, despite moving through mainly US held territory devoid of the enemy on the way. Stalling around Bastogne, despite Coningham of the RAF giving him massive fighter-bomber support. The Germans had few forces around Bastogne moving off west being met and stopped by the British 21st Army Group, as Bastogne was on their southern flank of little interest to them. They wanted Antwerp.

No mention of Patton and Bradley siphoning off supplies from the First Army, against Eisenhower's orders, scuppering the Northern Thrust.

The only times Patton moved fast was when there were few of the enemy in front of him. A lot of the open territory he moved into was strategically unimportant. All of this needs to be mentioned. There are enough sources stating this. Many historian have looked at Patton properly dismissing the media myths around him. Ellis, Yeides and Neillands for starters.

2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9C95:80DB:C951:873B (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cite your points with the books and page numbers, please.
 * The IP is now blocked from editing.

There is a depressingly vast amount of misinformation about the performance of US military commanders in WW2 on Wikipedia that is fiercely guarded from editorial balance by a cadre of bigots who clearly have a shared agenda. Patton, Trump's favourite general, is their totem. Higher command in the US Army was almost entirely about patronage rather than ability. This was also true of the other allies but was generally shot out of them by 1944. This didn't happen to anything like the same extent in the US Army so egomaniacs like Mark Clark, MacAurthur and Patton was left to squander the lives of their men in pursuit of glory along with incompetents like Hodges and Stilwell. Of course, the US did produce great leaders like Eisenhower and Collins, maybe the true hero of Cobra, and wiki's bias demeans their memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.168.76 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the man myself, but I don't think the content here has changed significantly since the 2016 election campaign and can only suggest what is suggested above - provide some updates with supporting reliable references. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As is the distressing amount of POV posts on Talk Pages without referencing a single source to back up said POV.