Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Why Field Marshal Law Montgomery was much greater than Patton.

Greetings all, and my sincerest apologies about the length between posts. I simply haven't had the time to maintain this blog, but here I am, at last! :D

I'm going to initiate my return with a very controversial topic - many believe that George S. Patton was the greatest American tank commander, and even general, of all time. These individuals also tend to frown on the caution displayed by his English counterpart, rival and superior, General Montgomery.

Here are some basic points I am going to offer:

1. Patton was a contemptible man who instigated strife among his fellow commanders and the Allied High Command.

2. Patton didn't seem to believe in a "grand alliance." Or, if he did, he attempted to belittle International efforts. He hated the English, detested the Arabs, scorned the Russians, beleaguered the French etc.

3. Patton was disloyal to his wife... It almost seems that he dated his niece, Jean Gordon. She certainly became too close to him.

4. Patton was a reckless general, and he seemed to hold the belief that the war was designed for his further gains and glory (charge around Messina and the Waters' incident come to mind)

5. Patton was a vulgar man who luxuriated while seeming to ignore the needs of his soldiers (slapping several men who suffered from battle exhaustion, preferring petrol over food rations, drawing a revolver in a hospital etc.)

6. Patton, "Talked too much." He couldn't keep secrets and thence was not privy to certain information or developments in Allied High Command (Eisenhower never informed him about Ultra, and he was not privy to much of the planning regarding Overlord).

7. Patton was too impetuous to be a great soldier, and he directly disobeyed orders from his superiors.

That's all for the moment. I'll let you readers consider that and wait anxiously for the next part. ; )

3 comments:

Glandias the Fox said...

Sp basically Montgomery was a better commander because Patton didn't have as high moral standards as him?

My family tends to believe that if we listened to Patton more, we would have won the war much sooner.

Kate said...

But he was reckless, like Agent said.

Besides, if you want the country to be protected by moral men, then Montgomery would be a better choice.

That's just what I think.

Agent said...

Obviously his morality is dubious, but I wouldn't state that it's my foremost reason why Monty was better... Just one of a plethora I deemed necessary to mention. lol

Patton was a cavalry officer, through and through. He was good at leading tanks into battle... He should never have been given command of anything more than an armoured division, because he was good at that. If we'd "listened to him more," we'd have been "Dunkirked" again! :P Look at what almost happened at the Ardennes. Or look at the Falaise pocket... Patton was spread so thinly that he failed to even capture Argentan for 7 crucial days in which Germans escaped through the pocket. Bradley is often blamed for that, but he ordered Patton to stop because of Patton's reckless, almost cavalier, disregard for his men's safety.

Monty wasn't perfect, I'll cede, but he was the best that the Allies had. ;)