Talk:George S. Patton/Archive 4

February 2017
Why is there no mention of Patton's extreme anti-Semitism? (81.159.6.131 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC))
 * Anti-Semitism
 * Antisemitism is mentioned, search for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Image" section deals with this. — Ed! (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The article carefully makes no mention of the extreme anti-semitic comments Patton made against Jewish DPs under his care. In fact at present the article is concerned solely to promote Patton's equally toxic Islamophobia. But then it's English Wikipedia, which is merely a vehicle for the Murrcanoid view of the world, so, quelle surprise. The article also unsurprisingly fails to register the actual import of a general officer striking enlisted men (he should have been cashiered, and it says nothing good at all about the United States Army that he wasn't), and the article also fails to register that Patton was a useless general who achieved nothing of note and was merely a show-pony created by the US publicity machine, but, again, quelle surprise.Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for your opinions. Knock it off. MPS1992 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's a matter of record. The article as it stands is an unsavoury nationalistic hagiography of an unsavoury individual. Try this:-- https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/surviving-the-nazis-only-to-be-jailed-by-america.html Where you'll find this: 'Faced with complaints by outside Jewish groups about conditions of “abject misery,” President Harry S. Truman sent a former immigration official, Earl Harrison, to Europe to inspect the camps. His findings were blistering. The survivors “have been ‘liberated’ more in a military sense than actually,” Harrison wrote Truman in the summer of 1945.

“As matters now stand,” he wrote, “we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them. They are in concentration camps in large numbers under our military guard instead of S.S. troops.”

I ran across Harrison’s report a few years ago while researching a book on the flight of Nazis to the United States after the war. As I examined the path the Nazis took out of Europe, I struggled to understand how so many of them had made it to America so easily while so many Holocaust survivors were left behind. One answer came in a copy of Gen. George S. Patton’s handwritten journal. In one entry from 1945, Patton, who oversaw the D.P. operations for the United States, seethed after reading Harrison’s findings, which he saw — quite accurately — as an attack on his own command.

“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.”

Other evidence emerged revealing not only Patton’s disdain for the Jews in the camps, but an odd admiration for the Nazi prisoners of war under his watch. Under Patton, Nazi prisoners were not only bunked at times with Jewish survivors, but were even allowed to hold positions of authority, despite orders from Eisenhower to “de-Nazify” the camps. “Listen,” Patton told one of his officers of the Nazis, “if you need these men, keep them and don’t worry about anything else.” '

Or there's this:-- http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-general-patton-admiration-214545 Where you'll find this: 'Disturbingly, Patton had zero sympathy for the Holocaust victims living in wretched, overcrowded collection camps under his command. He was unable to imagine that people living in such misery were not there because of their own flaws. The displaced Jews were “locusts,” “lower than animals,” “lost to all decency.” They were “a subhuman species without any of the cultural or social refinements of our times,” Patton wrote in his diary. A United Nations aid worker tried to explain that they were traumatized, but “personally I doubt it. I have never looked at a group of people who seem to be more lacking in intelligence and spirit.” (Patton was no friend to Arabs, either; in a 1943 letter, he called them “the mixture of all the bad races on earth.”)

The orders from above—Eisenhower wanted him to confiscate the houses of wealthy Germans so Jewish survivors could live in them—embittered Patton. His beloved Third Army was decaying as troops decamped for home, discipline vanished, and meanwhile, “the displaced sons-of-bitches in the various camps are blooming like green trees,” he wrote a friend. He saw journalists’ criticism of his handling of the Jews and the return of Nazis to high official positions as a result of Jewish and Communist plots. The New York Times and other publications were “trying to do two things,” he wrote, “First, implement Communism, and second, see that all business men of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.”

As reports on the conditions in Bavaria began to alarm Truman, Eisenhower came down from Frankfurt on September 17 to join Patton on a tour of the camps where Jewish refugees were housed. He was horrified to find that some of the guards were former SS men. During the tour, Patton remarked that the camps had been clean and decent before the arrival of the Jewish “DPs” (displaced persons), who were “pissing and crapping all over the place.” Eisenhower told Patton to shut up, but he continued his diatribe, telling Eisenhower he planned to make a nearby German village “a concentration camp for some of these goddam Jews.” '

Indeed there is an academic book, The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the US Army, by Dr Joseph Bendersky of Virginia Commonwealth University, ISBN 978-0465006182, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jewish-Threat-Anti-semitic-Politics-U-S/dp/0465006183, which outlines the historic anti-semitism of the US officer corps and deals with Patton in that context. See this commentary: http://www.jewishpost.com/archives/news/the-power-of-prejudice.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Smoking
Did he, or did he not smoke? I've looked through the article, but can find nothing one way or the other. I was wondering if anybody knew. I know that the likes of Hitler and Montgomery did not partake, but a lot of people at that time did imbibe - was he one of them?

RASAM (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for content check

 * Would someone please check some information in the Battle of the Bulge section? The winter of 1944 had been the worse in years. After a meeting with Bradley on the 21st, concerning the Third Army's advance, and Patton desiring good weather for his advance, he ordered a chaplain to compose a prayer which he did. The article gives this rendition:


 * "Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen.". It was a terrible winter and I had read somewhere that the prayer differed slightly with "...to restrain this immoderate weather...". I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this, against sources, to determine what might actually have been written. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Question
I have a question for all of you WWII Historians.


 * The Question is if General Patton didn't die do to a broke neck, and he gone to the Pacific. Do you believe that we wouldn't have to dropped the two atomic Weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Look at it this way: Would the situation have changed? Would Patton's reaction to that situation be any different?   I can't see either of these being different. There was a great desire to end the war quickly, rather than making further amphibious assaults. Patton is likely to have taken just the same decisions - nothing about him suggests that he'd have opposed the bombings. Even though he might have personally wanted to wade ashore waving a sabre.
 * Taking the "if he hadn't died" point, then most obviously he didn't die until December. So if he was appointed commander then, the original plan for the invasion of Japan has already failed. Did the bombs fail? Did the Japanese not surrender (and a third bomb was some distance behind)? Had there been a conventional attack instead? Those are such divergences from the history we know already that the mere involvement of Patton would be a relatively minor difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people believe General Patton was a genius, compared to MacArthur. We did have a 3rd bomb (Thin Man), practically ready to go. I guess we will never know what could had happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Patton died in December 1945, long after the Japanese surrender, so it's not a sensible question. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George S. Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528203232/http://www.efour4ever.com/44thdivision/bridgehead.htm to http://efour4ever.com/44thdivision/bridgehead.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Patton & "Phantom Army", potential bias
"The German High Command had more respect for Patton than for any other Allied commander and considered him to be central to any plan to invade Europe from England"

So goes the statement opening the paragraph for the "Phantom Army" subsection. The source for this (ref 140) is given as page 127 of Axelrod, Alan (2006), Patton: A Biography, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

I have been unable to access Axelrod's book to see what he has to say for himself. However, I am conscious of the fact that the suggestion that the German High Command had "more respect for Patton than for any other Allied commander", or that Patton was "central" to any plan for Overlord is flatly & decisively rejected by Harry Yeide in his more recent work on Patton Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of His Enemies (2011). In fact, Harry Yeide's somewhat revisionist work which seeks to dispel aspects of the Patton mythology is not used in the article at all. For a more accurate reflection, would it not be ideal to use more up to date works & impartial works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.M. Sir D.H (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is well-researched, the views can certainly be included - but that won't mean removal of the previous material; "up to date" does not mean better - we go by the worth of the source (referring to reviews by other historians on the source), and apparently this author has his own partiality ... 50.111.36.94 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Assassination Conspiracy
A while ago in the accident and death section I added there was a conspiracy about his death actually being an assassination by the Soviets, but it got removed. I think it's worth noting, and I will re-add it if no one objects.2601:245:C101:6BCC:1FB:574D:FD81:C111 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's WP:FRINGE, so has no place. (Hohum @ ) 21:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

add it, it's interesting and wilcox's book on the subject is scholarly and persuasive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.134.82 (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's clearly WP:FRINGE.  In fact it's not even plausible.  It has no place in an article that's supposed to be encyclopedic.


 * Billmckern (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and we've been here several times before. See the archives. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Assasination by Werwolf commandos through piano wire strung across road was silenced by Media blackout. But word-of-mouth attribution was promulgated among American soldiers.96.248.116.130 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Da'Shawn Carter

Wilcox's book meets the usual Wikipedia standards, and it's not the only one which concludes that Patton was probably assassinated by his own side. Different investigators have reached different conclusions about Patton's death; quoting only the "official" version amounts to a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, in my opinion. Longitude2 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding that there is a "conspiracy theory" to a WP article is not fringe. There are countless counter theories in WP articles; but that does not mean they should be left out due to WP:FRINGE. It just means: "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is ..." One states with sources what is theorized about a certain event; i.e. the moon landing. Whether it happened or not is not our place to decided whether it goes into an article. The way it is included is our duty with the proper language and approach. I vote to include based on reliable sources, and keeping the original cause of death as more notable and widely accepted. ADDENDUM: a perfect example of conspiracy theory inclusions: Death of Adolf Hitler. Maineartists (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wilcox's book does NOT meet standards. Patton's accident and medical condition was thoroughly witnessed by many people. A book built on some looney concept is not a Reliable Source. As far as Hitler's conspiracy theories, those were much wider and a constant point of discussion - only a handful of people ever paid any attention to the goofy Patton-was-murdered myth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.94 (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the very fact that you state: "... only a handful of people ever paid any attention to the goofy Patton-was murdered myth" supports the claim that the controversy was actually covered and disputed. Otherwise, you argument is merely "personal opinion"; and I'm quite sure you are not coming to this thread with just a personal opinion. To still be discussing this topic in August 2020 diffuses any defense you may present versus Hitler's "much wider and ... constant point of discussion." The fact that we are still discussing it as a controversy makes it relevant. You can not have it both ways. Last, I never mentioned Wilcox's book; merely the controversy. In a Controversy section, simply stating a controversy does not make it factual; and by offering sources that counter those controversial claims (which I'm sure you have many, correct? see above) is what provides a WP:NPOV. That is what makes WP what it is; not allowing editors to call existing material: "looney" and "goofy". This controversial photograph of Constanze Mozart is most definitely a hoax; but there are some who say it is authentic. That is not for us to decide as editors. We present what is out there and provide both sides of the case for the reader to decide. You may not like it, but it's fair. Maineartists (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Article title should include "Jr." at end of name
Simple change, but as follows in the first sentence of the article, shouldn't the article title read "George S. Patton Jr." as that is more correct (and more commonly understood) than the omission of the suffix? Wanted to throw it out to the community before making any edits on such a major article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:CB81:6000:450F:D712:2E60:E9CA (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say no. WP:JR/SR seems to indicate we should use Jr. only if "commonly used in reliable sources."  While "with" is not rare, I would say "without" is more common.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

An American "Folk Hero"?
Just because one fawning biographer claims on page 1 of his book that his book's subject is an American "folk hero" does not make it so and the claim does not belong as a fact in the introduction to this article. I have tried to remove it but have been revert by Thewolfchild. Thewolfchild, is there something you would like to discuss?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you seem to have real issue with the term "folk hero". I'm not sure why that upsets you so much, (it is properly sourced and used in context), but that was not the primary reason I reverted your changes., the main reason I reverted your edit was because you added "controversial" to the opening sentence of the lead (unsourced). It was literally the 4th word, after his name and dob. I noted that the edit was "undue", but instead of going to the talk page, reveted again, apparently seeking to have a dialogue via edit summaries, which is not how content is discussed. , this article has had many contributors and has many watchers. Perhaps it would be best if you propose an edit here. I'm sure others will also contribute and we can hopefully come to  consensus on a way forward. -  wolf  19:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's discuss "folk hero." You claim that "it is properly sourced and used in context" and I have stated that "Just because one fawning biographer claims on page 1 of his book that his book's subject is an American "folk hero" does not make it so and the claim does not belong as a fact in the introduction to this article." It's undue weight. plain and simple. Find 5 a couple other sources that claim he's a "folk hero" and then you can include it as part of the summary of this article.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hyperbole. It's also an outlier. Nobody else thinks that Patton, son of privilege, marrying the daughter of a rich man, was a "folk" anything. Let's keep "folk" out of the biography. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's pretty bold opinion, Binksternet, it's certainly clear how you feel about the guy. But we don't edit solely on opinion, just as we don't removed sourced content simply because we don't like it. Believe it or not, others (outside of this discussion) actually do think of Patton as a folk hero. Not because of his family's status or his wife's finances, but because of his accomplishments and personality. Just the same, while a lead summarizes an article, which often means a repeat of info, I think we can remove the "folk hero" comment from the lead, therefore retaining just the single sourced mention of it in the article body. Would that suffice? -  wolf  19:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because of WP:UNDUE. You haven't shown that the term "folk hero" is so widely used to describe Patton. And when you try to do so, you'll find the task impossible. Regarding my opinion of Patton, I have not given you any indication of how I feel. So don't jump to conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"No, because of WP:UNDUE." - "No"... what? "You haven't shown that the term "folk hero" is so widely used to describe Patton." - I haven't tried to. "And when you try to do so, you'll find the task impossible." - Really... ? "Regarding my opinion of Patton, I have not given you any indication of how I feel." - Your comments above say otherwise. "So don't jump to conclusions." - I didn't, I just read your comments. That said, you've been on WP long enough to that you don't edit disputed content while an active discussion is taking place. Further, how do you justify removing a sourced, pos+ "outlier" from the end of the lead, while at the same time cramming in a neg- "outlier" right into the opening sentence? Your comments above, your additional comments since, the edit-warring and overall brusqueness speak volumes. Did one his ancestors run over one your ancestors dog or something? Anyway, lemme know when your willing to actually discuss the article. - wolf  23:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...aaand another revert, and then removing all the content and sourcing altogether, all the while quoting policies (that you're misapplying) in edit summaries because you seem to believe that is an acceptable substitute for discussion. Noted - wolf  23:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Marching fire advocate
I noticed that this biography does not yet have anything about the field tactic called marching fire, even though Patton was a prominent advocate. The marching fire article talks about how Patton used the tactic as part of his general pattern of attacking quickly to get the job done faster and thus minimize casualties.

Perhaps a paragraph or so could be added, discussing the field tactics he was known to employ. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Error
The VMI photo is wrong both in this FA article and on Commons. Patton was only at VMI 1903-1904 yet the photo says 1907. He would have been class of 1907 if he'd stayed there but he switched to West Point. It's impossible for this photo to have been taken in 1907 at VMI as he was at West Point in 1907. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

ROTC error
ROTC wasn't created until 1916, so Patton couldn't have applied to colleges with ROTC programs. 134.6.102.70 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The first Patton in America was Robert Patton
Actually, the first Patton in America was James Patton (1692-1755), who arrived in Virginia in 1738 or 1740. He was born in Ireland of a Scottish father. I did not edit this line in the article, because I suspect the Robert Patton referred to is an ancestor of George Patton, and I can't be sure that James Patton is related. Cmacauley (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Extensive use of Axelrod
I have noticed an extensive use of Axelrod for referencing some sections, which are grossly incorrect. I may have a looking I get a chance, but if someone has more correct references and can adjust, that works too. Enderwigginau (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I found 8 reviews of Axelrod's biography --all are quite favorable. EG: "The ability of the book to succinctly depict Patton is a tribute to Axelrod’s skills as a writer and historian. Three attributes especially stand out throughout the book. First, Axelrod has mastery over his subject material. This is his second book on Patton, following Patton on Leadership (2001), and he truly capitalizes on past research. Second, the author belongs to a select group of writers, who can crisply and quickly come to their points. There is no added “fluff” in Axelrod’s writing style. Finally, Axelrod has done a superb job of selecting key events in Patton’s life that give readers a balanced look at the man. The author reflects on incidents that exposed both the good and not so admired qualities of Patton. Combined these factors give readers a true understanding of the man in minimal terms."  [History: Reviews of New Books Jan. 2006] KIRKUS REVIEW (a journal for librarians who buy selected books) said, "Like Patton at his best: [this book is] polished, precise and persuasive." Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not a competition to find positive reviews, research any specific point that Axelrod makes and you can find errors. He is very good at generalised information, but not specifics. And he isn’t the only reference used in this article that is wanting. Note the section on II Corps after Kasserine Pass and it states that Patton rebuilt and retrained them, and then had Bradley made his deputy. This is patently false as Bradley was sent to fix II Corps by Eisenhower, and did so before Patton was made commander. Patton then requested Bradley which was allowed provided that Bradley still worked for Ike. Enderwigginau (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also made a recommendation under "Phantom Army" to correct historical inaccuracies attributed to Axelrod. For example: "The German High Command had more respect for Patton than for any other Allied commander and considered him to be central to any plan to invade Europe from England. Because of this, Patton was made a prominent figure in the deception scheme Operation Fortitude during the first half of 1944."
 * While I don't know Axelrod's source for such a claim (or if he actually wrote something so egregiously nonfactual; I would hope not, but I don't have that book to check precisely what was written) my initial guess is that this claim is based on General George C. Marshall's 21 October 1943 letter to Eisenhower. "It seems evident to us that Patton’s movements are of great importance to German reactions and therefore should be carefully considered. I had thought and spoke to [Walter Bedell] Smith about Patton being given a trip to Cairo and Cyprus but the Corsican visit appeals to me as carrying much more of a threat [to northern Italy]."
 * Something that "seems evident" does not constitute a factual claim. There is no evidence that Marshall had knowledge of the inner communications within the Oberkommando. He was simply making a guess. Conjecture based on guesswork should not stated here as historical fact.
 * German records do not contain evidence the Oberkommando knew who Patton was besides one of America's many generals. There is no evidence they viewed him as a strategist of note, nor "had more respect for Patton than for any other Allied commander" at any point in the war.
 * As it seems that others have found historical inaccuracies in Axelrod's work, I propose diversifying more with biographies that rely on stronger documented evidence, or that the current wording be clarified to remove known historical inaccuracies. My own research is in part based on Harry Yeide's "Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of His Enemies." Tbonequeen79 (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that citing any good secondary RS is OK here because they provide proper context. However, I would avoid direct citation of Patton himself, unless it was made by a secondary source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)