Talk:George S. Patton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Awards and decorations

The listing for the US Army does not follow the order of precedence: The Mexican Service Medal is out of place, as is the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal. Please refer to the HQDA order of precedence [1] for the correct order of precedence. Needless to say that the JPG is also wrong. Thanks.

Why nothing on the gap after Sicily?

As is well known, Patton was not given a combat command between the Sicily campaign and the campaign after the Normandy landings (of couse he was not involved in the landings themselves).

There is mention in the article of the use that "fear of Patton" was to the allies in keeping the Germans concerned about where he might appear - but he would have been rather more use in the field.

For example, the American commanders in the mainland Italian campaign were not close to being the equals of Patton.

Was it really the slap that caused Patton to be denied an operational command in this period? If so who was behind all the press attention this got?

I admit that I am British and, therefore, may find it hard to understand the American view of the matter (after all in the First World War Britsh troops with shell shock were sometimes shot - so a slap would have been getting off rather light) even today (sixty one years after World War II) a certain amount of physical abuse, although by N.C.O.s not commanding Generals, is the norm in the British army (although the public's attitude to this may be changing).

The lack of Patton cost thousands of allied troops their lives in the Italian campaign. A commander of Patton's type may be unpopular with some troops - but fewer will die under him. Men die of delays and incompetance more than they die of aggression.

Paul Marks.

Paul - Welcome. With your enthusiasm, I suggest you get a logon id (not necessary to edit, but useful for communications), be bold and start editing. But also we aware of the wikipedia goal of neutral point of view. I suspect there will be some healthy dialog with some of the other editors. John (Jwy) 18:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul, just dig up Patton's freaking corpse and suck on what's left of his rotten jew-hating dick already.

Film

Some of the "facts" stated in the article, such as "In a play on his nickname, troops joked that it was 'our blood and his guts'" seem to be derived more from the movie "Patton" than real life. Editors should remember that the movie is based on a true story. Not everything in the movie is factual.

Shouldn't Patton link to here instead of a movie about him?

I see thats a very old unsigned comment, but it makes a very good point. I will go ahead and make the redirect. -Husnock 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

In the movie section, the link Patton does not link to the film "Patton" -anon user 18Jul05

Fixed it -Husnock 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

By November 23, however, Metz had finally fallen to the Americans, the first time the city had fallen in nearly 1,500 years.

Corrected this in the article. During the Franco-Prussian War, Metz was surrendered to the Prussians by Marshal Bazaine on October 27 1870. --Kudz75 06:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I corrected a passage about the Ardenne Offensive. It was the last major Germand Offensive, not the last one. That honour goes to Operation Frülingserwachen. --Ebralph 12:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Son

Should there be mention of his son, also George S. Patton, also a Major General of armor?

- Maybe: George S. Patton III? -Husnock 14:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC) I agree an article should be created.

The son of George S. Patton, Jr. was actually George S. Patton, IV. The first G. S. Patton (1833-1864) was the Civil War officer, the second George William Patton (1856-1927)(changed his name in 1868 to George S. Patton in honor of his late father), the third is G. S. Patton, Jr. (1885-1945) (old Blood and Guts himself) and the fourth (1923-2004) was a decorated Korea and Vietnam veteran. G. S. Patton V carries on the family name. MikeMullins 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article bias

this article is awfully biased. He lost a few battles for god sakes!

And he certainly didn't lead the British in 1917! The very idea!!:<)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 17:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heh, about as ridiculous as the idea that Monty won the Battle of the Bulge, or that Market Garden was 90% successful. -Joseph 19:02, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

MWAK, the difference is that Monty made the claims about winning the Battle of the Bulge and That Market Garden was 90% successful. Wikipedia quotes Monty and does not claim the two to be facts. Patton did not lead British tanks at this battle, he lead US tanks and I have edited the article to reflect this.

The article starts off with extreme bias, "the vast majority of his soldiers loved him for what he was—a pure and ferocious warrior." Did we take a poll? Was it an unbiased, random selection poll? How are we defining "pure", here? -Harmil 15:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The article does not show bias. At many WWII reunions Army veterans will brag "I rolled with Patton". Patton was loved by his troops because he was not a "CP" commander and led from the front. Patton also took care of his troops by giving 3rd Army soldiers longer furlough times and better mail service. Many books such as Victor Hanson's "Soul of Battle" provide evidence that Patton had a good relationship with those he commanded. -etalian

really? My dad spent some time in 3rd Army during WWII before his division was moved to 9th Army and has said on many occasions that Patton was far from loved by his troops. Bradley usually got that accodlade. Patton himself was quoted as saying 'so long as they fear me' in response to the suggestion that he wasn't beloved of his men.--Lepeu1999 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. Bradley specialised in being loved (and undermining other people behind their backs - he spread stories that both Patton and MacArthur where mentally unsound).

However, Patton was the better soldier. People who make it their main objective to make themselves popular (partly by running other people down) only have a limited amount of time for other tasks.

That, of course, includes me - Patton would not have bothered to attack Bradley (he had more important things to do).

Paul Marks.

Explanation for move

"George S. Patton" actually generates more hits than "George Patton" on Google, and a lot of people actually do know his middle initial. -Joseph 14:34, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back. Currently, George Patton is generating more hits (about 10% more) and, AFAIK, we only include the middle initial if it's for disambiguation or the person is generally always known by it. Oberiko 23:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think 10% is enough to justify it. He signs his name that way, the Army identifies him that way, and we can't keep changing it around for monthly fluctuations. -Joseph (Talk) 05:30, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

SecurityFocus cite

On 01 Nov 2004, this article was cited in a SecurityFocus article on phishing. Securiger 06:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What The Other Writer Doesn't Want you To Know.

It is theorized that Patton was in charge of a special unit that was full of only severly depressed or other un-mentaly sound peoples. He suposedly was so vicious that he lead those same people into a battle, which they had no will to fight; and they died.

If you are able to cite sources - then do so. Otherwise this smells POV.

Patton's views on Jews on the SS

In a TV programme, I read that Patton was anti-semitic and adored the SS. They also claimed that Patton rather wanted to ally the US with Germany to fight the "Judeo-bolshevik Sovjet Union". On the one hand, the source may not be a very good one, but on the other, they only reflected what was shown on the corresponding programme on TV. Sadly, I missed the TV show itself. The show was to be shown on German state TV, which is known for the reliability of their information. So, before I edit the article with something highly controversial like that, as I think this should be mentioned for the sake of resolving this highly legendary figure, I would like to verify all this. --Predator capitalism 23:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, simply put, Patton wasn't exactly what you would call "sane". Although he was a good general he had some very, very, odd views about life.

As a WWII historian and member of the US military, I am a little bit pro-Patton. I dont know about the Jewish stuff. But, I have to say, Patton did get into a little bit of hot water about the SS. He did say, on several occasions, they were excellent troops (he was mianly talking about the Waffen-SS though, not the Allgemeine/Secret Police/Concentration Camp guys). He also had a good friend and horse riding partner who was a former SS Colonel. Patton's admiration for the SS spilled over a bit to his views on nazis and villifcation of the SS may have been one of the reasons he said the Nazis were just like any other political party. Its a deep subject, indeed, into what he was thinking and his views on the world in general. -Husnock 15:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Patton made some very antisemetic remarks in the closing days of the war, finding concentration camp victims to be "lower than animals," and that naziism should remain in Germany after the war, among others. I recently rewrote the section on U.S. 761st Tank Battalion to reflect his racist views concerning black soldiers. I think something similar should be entered here, with the antisemtic remarks addressed as well. Im thinking under a new subheading? Patton's Prejudices?Ken Albers 20:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please include the context of the quote. Patton stated the inmates in the camps were reduced to a state that was 'lower then animals' by the conditions and circumstances of the camps. There is no doubt Patton shared the prejudices of many Americans of his time and class but let's not distort things. I am not a Patton apologist by any means nor do I think he was a second Alexander as do many of his fans, but let's keep things accurate. --Lepeu1999 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Patton held views that were common in the US at the time. To apply today's standards is a bit on the ridiculous side. It is irritating that one a person hold a view that is not popular, several people look to a "mental illness." To suggest that Patton suffered autism without offering evidence does not belong in a scholarly article. Patton held views that were quite common among the WASP population of the US. His views on communism were consistent throughout his life and reflected a view that was held by many.

Quite so. There was also a claim of "brain damage" in the article (from some writer or other) actually the turn the Third Army made to deal with the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge offensive was a master display of TECHNICAL army work - it was brain work (a task that Ike and the others thought impossible in the time Patton said he would do it).

As for racialism.

Patton was almost as racialist as Winston Churchill - who also made these sorts of comments (and worse).

There seems to be an inablity to understand that almost everyone was racialist back then - that does not mean they wanted to put anyone into gas chambers.

By the way some of own family were killed by the Nazis.

Paul Marks.

Movie section

Why such a long section on Patton, the movie here, when it has its own article? I suggest this should be cut down considerably, and merged into that article. I note that the last paragraph of this section isn't even about the movie, it just veers off into further George S. editorialisation. Alai 29 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change if you think it's a good idea. I agree with the proposal, as long as you leave enough of a "stub" left to point the reader to it. Hal Jespersen 29 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The reason I said Western Europe is because that includes Italy, France, and Germany, so saying "Italy and Western Europe" is wrong. It probably should be Sicily rather than Italy to avoid confusion and actually Western Europe doesn't include Czechoslovakia. But anyway, I think it's a mistake to include a detailed list of commands in the first paragraph. Mentioning his paper army but not his World War I service is an example of imbalance that this leads to. Hal Jespersen 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Isnt Italy in Southern Europe?? Most folks in the US associate West Europe as England and France, Central Europe as Germany, Austria, Switz, etc, Eastern Europe as former Soviet Bloc and Southern Europe as Italy, Sardina, Sicily, etc. Also, in WWII Italy and France were two very different campaigns and should be mentioned separately. Thats why I wrote it that way but it is certianly open to a rewrite. -Husnock 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You can follow the link to see the list of countries Wikipedia recognizes as Western Europe. But my point is that the first paragraph should not get into that level of detail. If I see no significant comments posted here after a while, I'll compress it down. Hal Jespersen 20:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the link to Southern Italy! But, yes, conpress the opener would not hurt. -Husnock 20:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Death

Since I know that there's a lot of editing going on with this page, I'll defer to the more active editors, but note that there are currently three different places where his death is mentioned. Some cleanup is warranted. Here are some factoids: accident was on 12/9. Two-vehicle convoy left Bad Nauheim at 9am. Driver PFC Horace Woodring in 1939 Cadillac Model 75 with Patton and Hap Gay. Accident happened at 11:45 in the Mannheim suburb of Käfertal, hit by 2.5-ton truck driven by T/5 Robert L. Thompson. As Patton lay paralyzed and bleeding from his forehead, he said "This is a helluva way to die." Gay and Woodring uninjured because they saw the accident coming and braced themselves; Patton looking out the window was oblivious. Died in Heidelberg with wife present, 17:55 12/21. Source Carlo D'Este, Patton, A Genius for War. Harper Collins, 1995. Hal Jespersen 17:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Trimmed the death accounts to ONE, here is a paragraph on the consipracy theories. Some conspiracy theorists pose that the driver operating the truck was ordered to hit Patton's car because of the belief that he was going to run for President when he came back to the United States, or because of his quarrels with occupation policies such as the Morgenthau Plan.[2] .Most historians, however, firmly believe that Patton’s death was nothing more than a tragic accident. It needs references to hold up to NPOV on the main page. Mytwocents 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded an image for General Patton's tombstone which is being utilized here Luxembourg American Cemetery and Memorial. Feel free to edit the file to fit the needs of the wiki. Also, if anyone would like to support this wiki I created, I'd appreciate that too!TchussBitc 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Assignments

Is it really "coming soon"? If not, that section should be removed. Al 12:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Racism

Reading the quotes, I am unsure as to whether this is out and out racism. I have changed the wording to "attitude", as in using this word, the reader can make up his own mind. We always have to be careful when using the word racism/racist with respect to an individual, as it is rather a charged word. Naturally, if a person is a racist, the word should be used. However, in Patton's case, I think he would be trying to get them to perform well by any means, for him and for their people as a whole. (Note that the word negro was definitely not racist in the 1940s) He was also not one to mince words. Wallie 14:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

George Patton wasn't any more Racist than any other persons in his era. For example, His family founded the community of San Marino, California, and they established Racial Covenants in all of the land deeds. George wasn't happy about it, but his partners insisted that he conform with wnat was considered normal in rural/suburban California.

CORNELIUSSEON 16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Ardennes Offensive

There is a long quote that is almost identical on another website. I will try to clean it up soon, but I would like to know who copied whom? www.reference.com/browse/wiki/George_S._Patton

Wayne

check the bottom of that reference.com page. It says: Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors - Ray Barker 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

His Accident.

What happened in that fatal car accident.

Regarding that, I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of the conspiracy theories surrounding his death, as it rife in the internet and some among some historians.141.157.220.233 01:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't much basis for them. There was a car accident.....what else do you want? DMorpheus 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why isnt War Crimes that happenned Under him, listed on his Page!

C'on, lets not hite the truth, we know all nations in WW2(and WW1 for that matter) commented War Crimes, lets not be bias, im an american and i know my own country comented war crimes(like every other country), i know 2 war crimes that this general allowed to happen!

Nothing is stopping you from adding this content if you have the facts. DMorpheus 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Patton convinced Congress to organize Armored Divisions?

I never heard that one before. Anyone have a source? What's Congress got to do with what types of units the Army organizes? I admit I am a bit skeptical of this statement. DMorpheus 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congress gets involved the same way as it does with most any military purchase, they control the money which is appropriated. Granted back then the various service secretaries had more lattitude than now but Congress often got involved. Needless to say that organizing and maintaining an armored division is expensive enough Congress would have to be involved. AM2783 )0:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Patton's problems with humor, his image, and the press

The last paragraph in this section is just oozing cynicism. Is there a source that someone can quote? Otherwise it seems pretty non-NPOV. Secretagentwang 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Education & Humor

I made a few edits to the Education section - to the Olympic entry. I reshaped the basic entry for clarity and brevity. Some of the language was a bit effusive & I toned it down a bit. I made an additional change to the section dealing with Humor re the 2 pistols. Patton did not carry a pair of .45's. For most of the war he carried a single Colt .45 and then later a Colt .45 and a S&W .357 magnum revolver. Both were chromed and had Ivory handles.--Lepeu1999 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is correct, but the unusually late date Patton learning to read seems at odds with the him being from a wealthy Massachusetts family. Compare the following:

The Pattons were an affluent family. As a boy, Patton was introduced to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the Bible, and the works of William Shakespeare.

and

Patton was an intelligent child, intensively studying classical literature and military history from a young age.

versus

He learned to read at a very late age as a child having never seen a printed page until starting school at the age of twelve...

It's hard to believe that a boy from a wealthy family at the beginning of the twentieth century would not see a printed page until age twelve. Maybe these factoids are conflating Patton with his grandfather (who was also named George).

children

no info about them !?!? --Joe dude 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this odd as well - I was trying to find info on his son, who was a troop leader in Vietnam and retired as a general - hopefully someone can mention that he at least had children...Michael Dorosh^Talk 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote attribution

Did Patton really say "Lead me, follow me, or get the hell out of my way"?

I doubt it; he wasn't much of a follower. It is a variant of a common saying in the US Army and elsewhere - "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way". DMorpheus 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Patton returned

to his southern California, home region for a few days at the end of the war. While in the area, he was given a heros welcome. Thousands turned out to see and hear him in Pasadena and Burbank outdoor addresses. It wasn't just the soldiers in his command who heard the famous "profanity".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuetralwordman (talk • contribs) .

Patton's "diseases"

Patton had Dyslexia and ADD. It was never attributed to him because they were not "discovered" until after his death. (DUHH) (Patton: Man behind the legend)? Steve Delrogs

If they were not diagnosed it seems a bit much to claim he had these conditions. DMorpheus 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fucking hate it when people post humanously diagnose diseases to people. In this era, we're expected to believe that everyone from Abraham Lincoln to Winston Churchill had some form of phyciatric illness...:rolleyes:. It's speculation at best, outright bullshit at the worst. 141.157.220.233 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Hirshson wrote a book on Patton called General Patton: A Soldier's Life. In this book he addresses the topic of Patton's supposed dyslexia and ADD. He discounts the argument the he had dyslexia on the basis that Patton was read to and never saw a printed page until the age of twelve. His only symptom throughout his life was poor spelling. MikeMullins 20:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Patton did suffer from many symptoms of dyslexia. Hyperactivity, moodswings, and feeling of inferiority are all syptoms of dyslexia. Patton's athletic ability and energetic style os leadership are examples of Pattons hyperactivity. The idea that Patton suffered from an inferiority complex is also not to far fetched. People with inferiority complexes often feel the need to over compensate and present them selves in a posotive confident manner, this would explain why Patton practiced his war face in the mirror, placed oversized insignia on his tanks & carried around an ivory handled pistol. It may also explain why he had such a hard time dealing with critisism, and why Patton was so apauled by the cartoons depicting him negativly. Gregor Vincent 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you a physician or psychiatrist? Did you examine Gen Patton? If not, are you aware of any such diagnoses? If not, shouldn't we forget about this speculation? DMorpheus 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of posthumous diagnoses either, but on the other hand D'Este's book was far better than Hirshson's. Hirshson's assertion that Patton's oratory was to blame for to war crimes agianst the Italians was sloppy at best, and rather hypocritical of Hirshson to condemn Patton's criticism of the post-war occupation of Germany, which involved far worse Allied war crimes against the Germans. He also makes too much of Patton's anti-Semitism which, without condoning it, was unsurprising for someone with Patton's background, attitude and worldview and didn't really influence his opposition to denazification as much as respect for the German people and a legitimate fear of rising Soviet world power. 67.22.42.138 09:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Patton's dyslexia symptoms are a matter of public record and deserve to be mentioned. There is speculation, and then there is speculation...in this case, Patton himself admitted to the symptoms "I have problems with letters..."Michael Dorosh^Talk 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Patton saber

It seems to me that to historians and other Wikipedia readers that Patton is remembered far more for his design of the now-famous U.S. Army Model 1913 cavalry saber than he is for once holding the title Master of the Sword. While important to his biography and notable as a personal achievement, this academic title should not overshadow his much more historically significant contribution to saber design, an effort that resulted in a saber that bears Patton's own name today. For that reason, I suggest that the subtitle of this section retain its focus on Patton's saber contribution, and secondarily on his less-important academic award. Jack Bethune 12:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the spelling back to "saber". Saber is the more common US usage, and we are after all referring to a US weapon, designed by a US officer. Google gives 1,740 hits for "Patton saber" and 370 for "Patton sabre". In US Army nomenclature it was a 'Sword' so that is no help. DMorpheus 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correctly editing my terminology. I do agree with your reasoning and, being American, I automatically wrote "saber" initially but felt the need to defer to Wikipedia's apparent slant towards British usage. My mistake. Regarding actual U.S. Army terminology, however, it's interesting to note that, soon after its adoption, the Model 1913 cavalry "sword" was renamed a "saber," a designation that became official U.S. Army terminology thereafter. Thanks again for your thoughtful addition. Jack Bethune 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just came across the manual for the weapon, where it is referred to as a "saber" throughout. I agree, wikip[edia has a strong British slant - not sure why. But this should settle it. DMorpheus 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

General Leclerc

I was wondering whether there was a reason to list General Leclerc as Marshal Philippe de Hauteclocque ("Leclerc") in this article. Of course de Hauteclocque is his real name, but he was known as Leclerc during the war and is named so in most histories I've ever read. In 1944, the year concerned with this entry he was a general, the title of marshal being awarded posthumously after WWII (I hadn't even known he became a marshal). Generally the habit is to list a person with the rank relevant to the date talked about. Anyhow, if no one objects I will change the name to General Leclerc (linked to his bio of course) in a few days.--Caranorn 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

"The first African American tank unit ... was assigned to Patton ... at his reluctant request.". What does a reluctant request mean? If he asked for it we can assume he wanted it. If not then it's much simpler to say "...was assigned to Patton.". DJ Clayworth 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the following text concerning the slapping incident.

This is particularly ironic in the case of Private Kuhl, who was absent without leave from his unit, had reported himself to the field hospital without having been sent back by a medic, and was exhibiting symptoms consistent with a malingering technique involving ingesting GI soap. Nor was this Kuhl's first attempt to avoid hazardous duty; he had tried the same stunt before. Under the Articles of War in effect in 1943, General Patton would have been perfectly within his rights to have shot Kuhl out of hand for cowardice. Although Eisenhower stood by his longtime friend, the "slapping incident" had serious consequences for Patton's career.

I find this passage very problematic. 1) It looks like a personal attack on a single soldier. 2) The Articles of War part if retained would also require a quote I feel. 3) If this entire passage was retained a modern analysis might be required (US troops were often fighting under horrible conditions and apparently some Generals like Patton were totally ignorant of the fact, many forms of battle trauma were not known at the time and described as cowardice, continuing to do so today is inapropriate).--Caranorn 11:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bonus Army

In the biography that I read on General Patton (ISBN: 0060009829), it stated an interesting piece of irony during the cavalry charge against the bonus army. One of the members of the bonus army was the soldier who carried him to a medic (and saving his life) after he was wounded in World War I. I cannot recall the soldier's name and I do not have the book anymore, maybe someone else does and can help. Perhaps this should be added to the interwar years. notyouravgjoe 10:23, 18MAR06

*****Soldier who saved Patton´s life in WWI was Joseph T. Angelo —89.103.92.56 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The best information on GSP's involvement with the Bonus March I have taken from Volume of the GSP Papers, and you will find it here: Bonus Army. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The "bonus army".

There were casualities on both police and "bonus army" sides before the military took over. Some of the people involved in the "bonus army" were not World War One vets, and (most importantly) the army (under the command of MacArthur) managed (after it took over) to defeat the "bonus army" without killing any of them.

The Communist party accounts of all these events (which seem to be treated as if they were unbiased history) have no connection with the truth.

Paul Marks.

Oh please. The generally accepted order of events is that most of the casualties happened because of the Army attack on the protestors, not prior to the attack. (There also was at least one death--a baby overcome by Army tear gas.) And even if some of the protestors were not WWI vets, so what? This is, after all, the just fight that led directly to the formation of the Veterans Administration and the GI Bill--both considered good outcomes by pretty much any vet you talk to to this day. And are you saying that any accounts critical of government actions against the Bonus Army are "communist party accounts?" Looking over the historians that have researched the event, while it is true some are on the broad left, only a few have actually been communists, and the rest span the political spectrum. Whatever their political views, they either do good research or not. It's fairly easy to seperate straight opinion from balanced reportage. There is voluminous documentary evidence and oral history on hand for this particular incident. MacArthur's attack was widely criticised from all quarters, and the Hoover administration's handling of the affair is considered to have contributed to its downfall in the 1932 elections. So save the sweaty-palmed cold war rhetoric. Jpramas 1 December 2006

Eh??

some Generals like Patton were totally ignorant of the fact, many forms of battle trauma were not known at the time and described as cowardice

This sentence doesn't make sense... How could he be ignorant of something that wasn't known in those days... To be ignorant of something you must at least know that it exists... 62.235.149.179 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

---

One should remember it was a much different time with a VERY different mindset amongst both the leaders and the troops.

My father was in Third Army and served in the US Army for 30 years.

His first duty in the army was caring for mules.

( Stateside, Hawaii, North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, The Bulge, Occupation of Germany, Korea, Stateside again ).

He never suffered combat fatigue DURING combat. It would have never entered his mind at the time.

During the Battle of the Bulge, his jeep hit a land mine. The officer in the jeep with him was killed. My father was thrown through the windshield and had his middle right finger mostly blown off and hanging. When the got him to an aid station, he had his finger sewn back on and they gave him apc ( aspirin with caffeine in it) for the pain. He went back on the line immediately. He was too cold and busy to have combat fatigue. He later served in Korea. The effects of combat upon him did not show up until years later. He was proud to have served " with Patton ". He remarked to me once that compared to the cold in the mountains of Korea, the Bulge was positively warm.

Near Candlestick Park in San Francisco ( I REFUSE to call it Monster Park ), a private home has a sign on its porch honoring General Patton.

The veterans who meet regularly in the house are all black veterans and honor the General and were also proud to have served under Patton.

George Senda Martinez, Ca. -[ 4.243.134.57 20:21 10-April-2007 ]

Quote

Before I add it, is the quote "As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I have no fear, because I am the meanest and biggest US Marine in the entire damn valley" acceptable?CityPride 10:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

King George VI of Great Britain: "General Patton, how many men have you killed in war?" Gen. Patton: "Seven, sir." Eisenhower: "How many did you say, General Patton?" Gen. Patton: "Three, sir." Eisenhower: "Ok George, we'll let you get away with that." -[ Jamesmcfad26 19:52, 15 August 2007 ]

Dates of rank vs. Rank comparison to Eisenhower

It seems to me that these two sections really display the same information in two different formats. Are both really necessary? Thoughts? MikeMullins 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not completely redundant, but it seems likely that they could easily be merged. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

George Smith Patton Jr?

Why isn't there an explanation for his name? His grandfather & father are named George Smith Patton. Wouldn't the General be George Smith Patton III. An explanation should be on this article. My guess is he was born after his grandfather's death & his father had a name change (George S. Jr to George S. Sr). GoodDay 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There was an explanation in the article but it was removed. See a quick discussion here on an old talk page. I'm looking into it and will try to get it back in the article. MikeMullins 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Patton's Lineage

Several California museums historical archives cite the Yorba family of Alta California, and how Ramona Yorba married Benjamin Wilson, who was from Tennessee, became prosperous in early California partially by marring into the Yorba family...who were granted 200,000 acres of land in the 1700's, which is now Orange County Calif.

Benjamin Wilson and Ramona Yorba had a daughter, Ruth Wilson...who was George S. Patton's mother. That means the famous American general was 1/4 Mexican. DonDeigo 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Ruth Wilson was daughter of Wilson's second wife, Margaret Hereford (see Benjamin Wilson link) But you could say the Wilson's money was 100% Mexican. -[ 71.159.133.255 21:09, 2 February 2007 ]

Negative....everything I have read in Wikipedia makes reference to Ramona Yorba as being Ruth Wilson's mother..only in this article is this distinct reference to the housekeeper as being his mother ...the Benjamin Wilson articles are clear about Ramona Yorba being Patton's Grand mother.....I think we need some citation DonDeigo 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The timeline below can be constructed from Patton A Genius For War (Carlo D'Este):

• 1844 Benjamin Wilson marries Ramona Yorba
• 1849 Ramona dies
• 1853 Wilson marries Margaret Hereford
• 1861 Ruth Wilson born

Ramona was not living when Ruth Wilson was born

What?

Can anyone else see that weird line of text in "the Patton sabre"? After the Olympics, Lt. Patton was made the Army's youngest-ever Master of the Sword. While Master of the Sword, Patton improved and modernized the Army's Cavalry Saber fencing techniques and designed the M1913 Cavalry Saber. TIME 4 BED!
It had a large, basket-shaped hilt mounting a straight, double-edged, thrusting blade designed for use by heavy cavalry. Now known as the “Patton” saber, it was heavily influenced by the 1908 and 1912 Pattern British Army Cavalry Swords.
It odesn't appear in the source... -[ 85.135.144.159 20:44, 7 February 2007 ]

patton anecdote

I remember hearing something about an instance where patton became frustrated and fired his pistol at a luftwaffe aircraft. I can't find any information on it anywhere..

Also, this article is really sloppy and needs a rewrite or cleanup or whatever... —4.227.253.198 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

The pistol incident was in the film. Don't know if it is true, but the incident preceding it was documented. Where the RAF officers assured him there would be no more German planes, then the meeting was bombed by the Germans. Infortunately I cannot find the reference. Jokem 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Family expansion

I've expanded the family section because I think it is important background to show what influenced him growing up. He had great military tradition in his family and he spent his career trying to live up to it. Also, it's reasonable to mention he had kids. MikeMullins 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

"Patton actually had the utmost respect for the men serving in his command..." (under "Patton's problems with humor, his image, and the press") - This seems slightly speculative. Is there any evidence to prove that Patton had the utmost respect for his men? Not that I doubt Patton's integrity, in fact I greatly admire him, but this doesn't really seem to be backed up by anything. Of course, if I've missed something, please tell me. James JCG Taylor 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

uh maybe the fact that he insited on being buried besides the "brave men that fought besides him at the battle of the bulge" -[ 129.89.183.250 21:44, 4 April 2007 ]

I remember reading that somewhere but I can't put my finger on it. I've added a {{fact}} tag to it. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk)}

^(contribs) 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

another patton anecdote

whilst watching a documentary on the aftermath of WWII. The story goes something like this: During the Berlin victory parade all the allies were showing off their latest and greatest weapons. The western allies parading their medium tanks (but the models have sliped my mind) the soviets had insisted that their vehicles came last in the procession. At the podium where all the senior officers were observing a british officer became quite alarmed by a rumbling of the earth, as a division of IS-III tanks drove past the British officer turned quite pale and looked very faint. It was at this point Patton apparently leaned in and whispered in his (the officer's) ear: "Dont worry, we're still on your side" Im not sure how much truth there is to the story but perhaps someone wiser has more information on the subject? - Tyler Chalky17 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I heard it, Marshall Zhukov was bragging about the range of the gun on one of their tanks, wher Patton replied, 'If any of my men fired on you people before they had closed to 700 yards, I would have him courtmartialed for cowardice.' One observer remarked it was the first time he had seen a Russian officer stunned into silence. If I ever get the citiation, I will post. Jokem 01:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ike?

Is it really appropriate for an encyclopedia article to refer to a former president as "ike". (see: "... But after consulting with George Marshall, Ike decided to keep Patton, but without a major command.")84.152.107.95 12:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is appropriate. "Ike" was the nickname for President Eisenhower. It was common usage in newspapers and news magazines during his administration.Head MMoid 06:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As well as during his presidential campaign. Jokem 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Campaign

The following apparent vandalism was added on 29 April.

Chinese Campaign George S Patton died heroicly on the battlefield in Northern China after his fearless leader, Ted Kennedy, allowed his army to become encircled by the Nationalists. Head MMoid 06:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

600 Miles - Normandy?

Under the Normandy section it says...

Patton used Germany's own blitzkrieg tactics against them, covering 600 miles in just two weeks, from Avranches to Argentan.

600 miles did not sound right to me and using a map I am guessing it is supposed to say 60 miles but I'm still not sure and confirmation of this would be nice. —75.68.36.81 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

No, it's 600 miles. It's really quite easy to verify if you take a few minutes and look it up. To only cover 60 miles in two weeks for a WWII armored division in a breakout on flat open terrain would be....unimpressive to say the least. I don't know where anyone would get that number as being realistic. Abalu (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Abalu

Yes, I did verify this. It's about 60 miles straight line from Avranches to Argentan. 600 miles would take one to PRAGUE!

The terrain of northern France is hardly flat and open. 60 miles in 2 weeks against German opposition is still an impressive feat. Gouveia2 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't we move it to "George Patton"? - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of nickname?

anyone know where he got the nickname "Old blood and guts", or what it means? thanks. Sahuagin 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How about asking that at the WP:RD? - Patricknoddyontheroad 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nixon?

Definitely needs a citation for the factoid about Nixon watching the film before deciding to bomb Cambodia. -[ 66.28.71.162 14:05, 9 August 2007 ]

What a crock!

Given his popularity with the American people and the respect in which he was held by his men, it is entirely possible he could have won the same nomination his erstwhile friend accepted.

Not a chance! Patton would never have lasted on the political scene. Career politicians and the press would have eaten him alive. He often had difficulty dealing with the press or anyone else who was not required to obey him. His opinions were too radical and he was too quick to shoot his mouth off. I doubt he would have been able to curb his lanquage, and the American public in 1945 would have never stood for him cutting loose with a blue streak on live TV. I think they would have grown weary of him really quick. —Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure. He was a controversial figure, true, but so was MacArthur, and sacking MacArthur cost Truman his job. I am not so sure Patton wanted a career in politics, anyway. Jokem 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Third Army battle performance

Aren't the casualty figures public knowlege now that the war is over? Surely the Germans kept accurate records and can be researched by someone vigorous enough? Our own records ought to be accurate enough also. Jokem 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is the one I've found so far:
• WORLD WAR II, KOREA AND VIETNAM CASUALTIES; Listed by State
  SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Firing Ward

The Orlando Ward page makes Patton's firing sound unprovoked, while this page says that it was "after repeated warnings." Which is true? —71.105.162.16 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Report that led to his dismissal?

Any info on the report mentioned here [3]? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Interwar Years

I changed "won" to "received" in front of "Distinguished Service Cross"; it is an award, not the lottery. —132.159.222.240 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace

It is filled with libel of Gen. Patton. 'Didn't have a sense of humor', one of his most famous jokes were "the Germans must run out of armor unless they have reproducing tanks" Racist? He was the first to integrate colored and white GIs when he needed more manpower, and this before any of the other US generals of WWII. Anti-semite? Yes, his remarks on Jews are not pretty. They were common at the time though. But, in "Patton a genius for war" he deliberately used a Jewish GI as translator when questioning an SS man and had a famous contempt for the SS because of their crimes. Let's not forget that Truman and Nixon said some pretty nasty things about Jews, but are the two US presidents who saved Israel in its most critical hours. With anti-Semitism, deeds and not words are what really counts. By that count, Patton "the most dangerous enemy general", as rated by the Nazi high command, was one of the Jews greatest friends ever. And "Eisenhower greatly liked by the men"...come on!!! I have never heard of a Third Army man who didn't consider himself Patton's, and not "Ike" or FDRs, man. Patton anticipated the Ardennes offensive, and, with Operation Cobra (his brainchild, NOT Bradleys) that would place him as perhaps THE greatest field commander of WWII, rivalled only by Zhukov, Manstein and perhaps Rommel, but not by anyother US general. I shall edit this article when I have the time. Jan Morup janmorup2@gmail.com —87.53.231.109 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Err....basically supplimenting his forces with colored gunfodder isn't rasist? And as for humor...well, that 'joke' was just HILARIOUS. Or not. Noting a book written 40 years after the fact, and noting one single case from that book, does not show any great appreciation of the jewish people. Was Patton a great general? Maybe. Probably, even. Was he a great PERSON. Not so much, perhaps. But, that is not necessarily a bad thing. The time needed a person like Patton. But don't make him out to be more than he was. —213.113.252.41 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you used so many theoreticals in your argument lends more credence to the preceding, perhaps more favorable portrait of General Patton, which I am more inclined to believe. As was said this article could use a little cultural relativism... General Patton was a product of his time period, and even at that time remarkably forward thinking and progressive. He was the product of a conservative, wealthy white upbringing, which let's not forget was of the early twentieth century - the fact that he requested the use of African American units (who were hardly gunfodder; I find that comment to be more offensive, relatively speaking, than anything Patton said of them) is significantly worth noting as well as his well-known disgust and outrage during the liberation of Buchenwald. His refusal to remove Nazis from government positions is also widely sensationalized; most Nazi officials were in fact removed, but on the other hand many government workers were retained in order to provide basic services, not to mention the Allied de-Nazification effort was reminiscent of the disastrous de-Baathification of Iraq in the wake of the removal of Hussein. In terms of his strategic capabilities as a commander, I would go even further than the proceeding argument and say that he was definitively THE greatest commander of World War II, and would be remembered more favorably in that aspect had he not been consistently held back by an American effort that was far too pliant to the demands of the British (who constantly preferred Montgomery with disastrous results, a la Op Market Garden) and the clamor of the press.

209.244.30.41 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumor regarding his death

I recently heard a rumor from someone I have no reason to doubt that the circumstances around Patton's death were suspicious. In particular that he may have been murdered because he intended to prosecute certain officers under his command for looting. I'm curious if there has ever been any scholarship on this topic? Ronnotel (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There was even a film about the conspiracy theory made in 1978 called Brass Target --rogerd (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A movie and scholarship are two different things. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't trying to imply that this work of fiction was a reliable source about his cause of death. I was just letting Ronnotel know that there had been so much talk about this conspiracy theory that they even made a film about it. The only place where this film should possibly be mentioned is on the "Legacy" section or perhaps a "Other films" section after the section about the 1969 film. He was asking why the other two Hollywood productions weren't mentioned in the article, and perhaps they should. I am sure there is no reliable source that backs up this theory. --rogerd (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. How come no mention on the article then? Seems like the movie itself would be notable enough to merit a sentence or two. Ronnotel (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The film wasn't very well received by the critics or the box office. There was another film about Patton, called The Last Days of Patton, a made for TV film with George C. Scott reprising his role. If you want to add them to the article, then go ahead. --rogerd (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to IMDB.com, went to the search page and entered "George S. Patton". Patton, The Last Days of Patton and Brass Target seem to be the only films where Patton was more than a minor character. It might be a good idea to add the other two films to article. --rogerd (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The rumor within military circles is that General Patton was going to prosecute some officers in his own former Third Army who had helped Germans abscond with Major Allgeiers Gold, ie 235m in reischmarks or 728 gold bars found near Mittenwald. Patton was unhinged at the time and under surveillance and wiretaps by the Allies for collaboration with the enemy. Supposedly this gold train ended up in Montauk, New York at the Air Force Base's underground research facility complete with some Nazi scientists who conducted mind control experiments there. Patton had been fired from the Third Army in 1945 and was put on a forced leave and was ordered to come home to United States when he met his untimly end a few months after leading the strongest US army division through Europe at the end of WW II in 1945. —209.84.255.36 (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fred8615 summarily deleted a correctly-cited reference to a new published account of Patton's death which theorised that it was an assassination attempt. Is there consensus for this deletion? --El Ingles (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any serious analysis or discussion of this theory, outside of the book referenced? If not, then I think the removal was appropriate per WP:UNDUE. Arakunem^Talk 19:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that it's nothing more than a stupid conspiracy theory. Just because he found someone to publish it doesn't make it true. I think the author saw Brass Target waaaay too many times. Fred8615 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Several major newspapers are now covering the book. The alleged assassin, Douglas Bazata has a rather impressive bio. He was a member of the Jedburghs. He earned four purple hearts, a Distinguished Service Cross and the French Croix de Guerre three times. He was also aide to President Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. Wayne (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that newspaper accounts are calling the author Robert Wilcox a military historian but he does not include "historian" in his list of occupations on the bio page on his own website. He says "author/journalist/screenwriter/editor". http://www.robertkwilcox.com/bio.htm Nurg (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dyslexia

Prominent in Carlo D'Este's biography of Patton are his struggles with dyslexia. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Patton?

Gouveia2 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was in there, so I did some looking. It appears that it was trimmed out as "useless detail" here in February 2007. More on the subject was removed here in September 2007 with no explanation. No discussion ever took place about removing mention of dyslexia and I think it should be worked back in. Whatever is added back in should be balanced between the arguments from D'Este and Hirshon. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Dyslexia was an important part of Patton's life. Overcoming this handicap, however severe, further proves his dedication and talent; hardly a "useless detail". Maybe others with opposing views can chime in. Gouveia2 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hirschon's book does a better job on Patton's learning disabilities or lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.186.245.72 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotes Regarding Anti-Semitism

This quotation may be misleading and is factually erroneous:

We entered a synagogue which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. Either these Displaced Persons never had any sense of decency or else they lost it all during their period of internment by the Germans... My personal opinion is that no people could have sunk to the level of degradation these have reached in the short space of four years.

— George S. Patton, "After the Holocaust: Rebuilding Jewish Lives in Post War Germany"

First of all, this quotation makes it appear that Patton was the author of the book listed, which as can be seen by the footnote is apparently not correct. Someone who is familiar with this book should correct the attribution of this quote, or barring that, the quote should be deleted as unverified.

Second, this quote attempts to equate "Displaced Person" with "Jew", a logical leap that is not supported by the quote mentioned. The location in a synagogue, of which there were many throughout Europe, does not confirm that the people mentioned were Jews. As the Jewish population had been deported from and/or exterminated in most areas of Europe at that time, many empty synagogue buildings were available, and, as empty buildings without caretakers, would seem to be logical places where homeless individuals might seek shelter. Literally millions of people were Displaced Persons by the end of the war, and the vast majority of them were not Jews. This quote may indeed be referring to Jews, or Patton may have considered them to be Jews, but the author of this section does not provide enough of a quote to allow the reader to conclusively come to that conclusion. As such, this quote may have been erroneously taken out-of-context. This quote should either be expanded to strengthen it, or else deleted.

Keeping this first quotation in mind, and especially given the redaction of significant portions of the original quotation, the subsequent quote also requires verification and clarification:

[others may 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.

Given the controversial nature of these quotes, and the sloppy way in which they are presented, these references (drawn from secondary or tertiary sources) are not, in my opinion, adequate here without specific reference to their primary source material. Although these quotations may ultimately prove to indeed be truthful and accurate, the way they are presented represents, at the very least, poor scholarship, and leads one to question the Neutral Point of View of the author(s) of this section.

NDM (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The source of the anti-semetic remarks is Patton's own diary. This is reported in the March, 2008 edition of World War II Magazine, published by Weider History Group Inc, Volume 22, No. 10, page 23, written by Stephen Budiansky. The article says, 'Patton's contempt for the Jewish victims of the Nazis was ugly and notorious; he wrote in his diary, "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." Harrison here refers to Earl G. Harrison, a lawyer and expert on refugees who President Truman sent to investigate. Patton's diary entry apparently is in regard to a letter Harrison had written to General Eisenhower stating, "As matters now stand, we appear to be treating the 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 SS troops. One is led to wonder whether the gErman people, seeing this are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.98.36 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Last Mounted Charge"

This is wholey incorrect, as the last mounted charge conducted by a US Cavalry unit was conducted on the Bataan Peninsula by an element of the 26th Cavalry Regiment. This unit, all be it, a part of the US Army Philippine Scouts, was still a US Army unit, and thus diserves the credit of this statement. Can someone please correct this eroneous statement.

I have added a "Citation Needed" tag, although I do not believe this claim is verifiable. [Edwin Ramsey]'s charge clearly deserves the title as written. If Patton's is a "last" of some sort, it should at least be written more specifically. --Jnik (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't vouch for its accuracy, but here's an online statement detailing the Philippine Scouts cavalry charge of 1942: [4] Jack Bethune (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Family background section way too long, repetitive, poorly organized

The family background section is too long, contains extraneous detail, and is poorly structured. In particular, the first thing mentioned about Patton's father is that he was friends with some Confederate solider, then we're treated to an overlong discussion of great grandparents, etc., then we come back to the father again. Unless there is strong objection, this section should be reduced by at least 50-60%. —207.237.53.226 (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Racial section should be eliminated

Patton's attitudes on race are both unremarkable for his time and irrelevant to his significance as a historical figure. The fact that the "race" section is as long as the sections describing his actual accomplishments and failures as a solider is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia project. Just because Patton was outspoken on a variety of issues does not mean that his views on all of those issues are notable, especially when there is no evidence -- NONE -- that he was more anti-black or anti-semitic or whatever than the typical Anglo-Saxon American of his generation. —207.237.53.226 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers

23-Sep-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Also, new topics will more likely be added at the bottom, not top. Afterward, I moved 7 topics into date order, and shortened auto-sign bot comments. When more unsigned entries are dated, they should be moved into date order. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Split off proposal

Anybody object to moving the controversies and criticism section to a separate article? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? (John User:Jwy talk) 07:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a long article. See WP:Article size. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view, including criticism. Moving criticism to a separate article and deleting it from this article would almost certainly violate that policy. Some of the material in that section should be better integrated with the rest of the article. For example, "After the German surrender" and "Task Force Baum controversy" - there's no reason why those need to be taken out of chronological order. This article now has a little over 10,000 words. That's long but not excessive. Reviewing the artilce, I don't see any sections that are obvious candidates for splitting out, but the "Relations with Eisenhower" section is quite long and thinly sourced. The "Trivia" section mostly involves his guns, and that might be split into a short article, something like "Patton's guns". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates WP:NPOV, since I wasn't asking for the material to be deleted, just summarized and relocated. However, upon reconsideration, the controversies had such a major influence on Patton's life that I now agree they should stay where they are. IMO, Patton's guns aren't in themselves worth an article, but maybe they could be incorporated in something more inclusive, possibly George S. Patton's public image? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for any kind of split. This article isn't too long. Binksternet (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pistol shooting contreversy

The article states, "In pistol shooting, Patton placed 20th out of 32 contestants. He used a .38 caliber pistol, while most the other competitors chose .22 caliber firearms. He claimed that the holes in the paper from early shots were so large that some of his later bullets passed through them, but the judges decided he missed the target completely once."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a .38 caliber bullet would leave a bigger hole than a .22 caliber bullet.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The holes in Patton's target were all the same size; they were all made by his own .38 bullets. Nobody shares target papers at a competition of this caliber (pun intended). I wonder where the proof is that Patton complained about how large his holes were--they all would have been a bit larger than the diameter of his bullets, and he would not have been surprised by this! At any rate, the difference between .38 and .22 would not matter. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilcox

It looks like its worth having a place to discuss the new book. All I know about it is what I have read here, but I am interested in making sure it takes only the "appropriate" amount of space in the article. Several paragraphs seems too much. And to me, no mention at all is NOT too little, but I am uninformed at the moment. But before edit wars start, it looks like the book should be discussed here. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit wars have started already. Sad. Mass deletions without consensus are not the way to get this done. --El Ingles (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But assume good faith and presume they need further evidence that the text belongs here. That's the way to get things done. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If the Wilcox section goes back in it must not contain the original research and synthesis conclusion that it first had, the one which refutes Wilcox without referring to an expert opinion of somebody else who refutes Wilcox. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One book, which seems to borrow heavily from an admitted fictional movie is not worth any space here. If there is an article on this book on Wikipedia, and someone wishes to link to it in this article, I have no problem with that. But I still say as long as there is NO other evidence beyond this ONE book, it doesn't belong. Fred8615 (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the book has been reviewed by a RS, the self confessed alleged assassin has impeccable credentials and that no one has so far refuted the claim warrants it's inclusion. This edit gives adequate weight for the claim and should comply with an guidelines for such material. Saying the claim is stupid is not a valid reason for exclusion (and a violation of WP:NPA). Wayne (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the "assassin" died several years ago, and thus can't confirm or deny the story now. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, you can't include every crackpot theory that comes along. Especially one that is so obviously based on a fictional movie. Fred8615 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, it is not the Wilcox book that is being included in Wiki but the rumours emanating from that book. Those rumours are already in the public domain, including an article in the prestigious London Telegraph. You ignore those rumours at your peril because they will certainly get picked up by future scholars – just Google Wilcox/Patton. Therefore I submit it is beholden on Wiki to include a refutation to set the record straight for the great upcoming future. My own humble offering you edited out. It needs tidying but it does set up strong counters to Wilcox’s shooting and conspiracy arguments.BillMaddock (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Fred, we are not including all crackpot ideas just one, and including it in order to refute it and set the record straight for future scholars. I don’t think Wiki will be taken any less seriously by the inclusion of one crackpot idea in the service of demolishing the said crackpot idea. In fact it could be argued that Wiki is being remiss if it did not deal with the Wilcox conjecture, which is becoming an established rumour, however much you dislike that rumour.BillMaddock (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe including it just to refute it "gives" it at least some credability. I know ignoring it won't make it go away, but that doesn't mean it should be acknowledged either. As I've said, a mention of the book, with a link to an article on it I have no problem with. Something like what's done with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, where they're presented in a separate article. But including the theory in the article itself, even to refute it, is not right I feel. Fred8615 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of restoring the theory, without giving it undue weight. I'm a bit baffled by the "just because it's in a book doesn't make it a fact" argument. Why doesn't this apply equally to the hundreds of thousands of other books referenced by wikipedia? --El Ingles (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not so much that as it's in ONE book. No one has ever proposed this before now that I've heard. If there is more evidence than just some alleged assassin's diary, which could be nothing more than the ravings of a delusional mind, or even fake, then maybe it deserves some mention. I'm also extremely bothered by how this whole thing matches the film "Brass Target," with only a change in motive for Patton's death. Or does this author believe that movie WAS an attempt to tell the "real story" the same way people who think the Moon landings were faked believe Capricorn One was really about that, not the faked Mars mission portrayed? Fred8615 (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, now I see your point: You don’t want the Wilcox conjecture given too much prominence. Give me a few days and I’ll précis down what I wrote. I’ll include it in the main Patton article and see if you are OK with it. In the meantime, a Merry Christmas. It is three hours into Christmas day here in Sydney, Australia and Santa has been and gone and delivered, yo ho, ho.BillMaddock (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, done. Hope you like and approve. Until someone else "out there" pens a rebuttal to Wilcox then this will have to be it. All the best.BillMaddock (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the Wilcox book debunked as much as anyone else, but how in the hell can a book from 1978 debunk a book from 2008? The new book Target Patton is going to need a new debunking expert quote, not a synthesis from facts presented in 1978 in Patton's Third Army At War. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Birksternet, Firstly the 1978 book is not debunking Wilcox: it is quoted as the source from which I quote the details between 9 December and 19 December 1945. Secondly there is no expert quote available, as of yet. This is it. Find something better by all means, but until then, my expertise it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMaddock (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Birksternet, I have undone your minor edit of the Forty reference. It would be a courtesy to me and save time if in future you would first discuss with me and reach agreement before editing my piece. At the very least I will learn something and thereby benefit. Thanks.BillMaddock (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would still prefer a link to a separate article than going through it here. But in the absence of such an article, I guess I can live with this. I still personally believe this theory is too stupid to even be worth mentioning at all. Fred8615 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx FredBillMaddock (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This story isn't coming out of the blue. I heard it more than 30 years ago when it was thought possible the OSS or Russians may have done it. It is known that Pattons wife believed he was assassinated because he asked her to get him out of the hospital because he thought some one was trying to kill him. The new book is only an new take on an old theory. As for the "rebuttal" it goes too far, saying no one noticed is OR. How could Patton tell anyone he was shot? People who dont know shooting is going on often dont realise they have been shot until told. That no one noticed is not uncommon either. I've heard of cases where people were shot and even the doctors overlooked it until autopsy and Patton was not autopsied. I recall a very recent case where I live. A man was shot in the leg by a neighbor and reported it to police. The doctors decided he had not been shot so the police didn't investigate and the neighbor again shot but this time killed the man several weeks later. Turns out he had not only been shot the first time but the bullet was still lodged in his leg. That investigation is still ongoing. The rebuttal should confine itself to stating there is no evidence to support it. Wayne (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"The rebuttal should confine itself to stating there is no evidence to support it." No, that's an impossible position to hold. The rebuttal should confine itself to an expert opinion baldly stating that the Wilcox theory is bunk. Bringing together odd elements that together must be made to add up to a rebuttal is sheer WP:SYNTHESIS. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet,

“The rebuttal should confine itself to an expert opinion baldly stating that the Wilcox theory is bunk.” There is no such expert opinion extant at the moment.

“Bringing together odd elements that together must be made to add up to a rebuttal”. This is not what I have done. What I have done is to list facts inconsistent with the Wilcox hypothesis; the Forty reference is simply there to substantiate those facts.

Finally, please come up with something better or I suggest you just accept it. Time might well provide something better.BillMaddock (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperfect though it is, I like to think that my rebuttal has the merit of being the least of all evils. It may just influence the next journalist who “lifts” the original Telegraph article: he’ll at least have something to Wiki on the subject. As I have said before, if you can find something better, then by all means…

However, it is good that we are mostly in agreement for I feel we may soon have to show a united front to one who does not share our distaste of his book.BillMaddock (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperfect, indeed! Let's start with the statement that Bazata got a troop truck to plough into Patton's Cadillac. The ploughing was done by the Cadillac, into the troop truck, when the truck turned left abruptly into the Cadillac's path. The road was flat and straight at that point. How the military driver could make such an error and what he was doing out on the road with two civilian passengers has never been adequately explained. According to Wilcox, his own children describe the driver as a man of very low character who would do anything for money. The damage to the front of the Cadillac doesn't look anything to me like the wreck was sufficiently severe for someone in the back seat to have suffered a broken neck and severe head injuries, either. It looks a lot like the front of my pick-up last year when a driver in the stopped lane on my right suddenly decided to get into my slowly-moving lane. My truck and the other driver's car were the only things hurt. Wilcox also writes about two previous suspicious "accidents" involving Patton, Army intelligence reports from Ukrainian partisans that the NKVD had plans to kill Patton, the disappearance of all the relevant investigation records from the archives, the suspicious background and behavior of the driver of the jeep leading Patton's party on its hunting trip, the disappearance of Patton's Cadillac, and much, much more. All of these things would have to be explained away to debunk Wilcox's book. Debunking a paid liar and admitted assassin like Bazata is shooting fish in a barrel. For all we know his purpose may have been to mislead serious researchers by making outlandish and unsupportable claims. His claim that he rigged the rear right window of the Cadillac so that it couldn't be closed when the car was stopped on a detour of some Roman ruins even Wilcox finds hard to believe. It's almost as hard to believe as the official story. FloydSmif (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Floyd, I am not sure what you are trying to prove. What I have written is that the shooting theory does not stand examination and that Robert Wilcox has done this sort of thing before (Japan bomb claim). You seem to be constructing a conspiracy built on other matters while ignoring the reasons I have given that indicate the shooting did not take place. If you can, please explain how the shooting took place in the light of reasons I give that it did not. Thx. (PS, Patton broke his neck by being thrown forward and hitting his head on something metal protruding from the ceiling or car partition – I’d need to look up which.)BillMaddock (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill, you would have to look for a very long time to find out what Patton hit his head on, because no one up to now seems to know. Isn't that odd? Get back to us when you find any account of an investigation that determined just what it was. It shouldn't have been too hard to match its outline with the damage to Patton's head. This is hardly a small matter when you consider the fact that it was a low-speed collision and no one else in the vehicle was hurt, apparently not even the dog that was riding in the front seat ahead of Patton. Furthermore, the collision was to the right front of the Cadillac. Patton would have been thrown forward and to the right, hitting a glancing blow against the door and window. I can't picture that inflicting such greivous injuries. There's nothing over there to stop his momentum so abruptly. As for no one noticing an assassin jumping out from the right side of the road and timing his shot probably just before the low-speed collision, there's no surprise in that at all. Your injection of your opinion that any of those people in the car, whose attention would have been riveted upon the impending crash, would have to have noticed a shooter from the side simply has no place in a Wikipedia article. You also misrepresent Bazata and Wilcox by calling the projectile that Bazata says he fired as a "bullet." Bazata describes it as a large object propelled from the muzzle of a specially-made assassin's weapon that would not be readily identified as the cause of the wound. The fact that apparently none of the surviving photographs of the damaged Cadillac show the right rear window is also curious. And I notice that you have not yet corrected your erroneous statement about the troop truck plowing into Patton's car. It's not good for one's credibility when he is apparently comfortable with falsehoods. As for the Wilcox track record, what about the track record of the Roosevelt-Truman administrations and the degree of its infiltration by and sellout to the Communists, which Wilcox describes. On that point, if I would fault Wilcox it is that he did not go far enough. He reports that Roosevelt blew off his top security adviser, Adolf Berle, when Berle presented him with evidence of a high level Soviet spy ring in his government in 1939, but he fails to indicate how strong the evidence was and how large was the spy ring. Just a couple of pages later, apparently forgetting what he had said before, he writes that in 1943 FDR must not have known how Communist-infiltrated his government was. He also talks about the the suspicions of General George E. Stratemeyer that both Patton's death and the death of the fiercly anti-Communist Defense Secretary James Forrestal were assassinations. He fails to mention the revelations of the official investigation of Forrestal's death, made public for the first time in 2004, that strongly suggest that Stratemeyer's suspicions about Forrestal's death, at least, were correct. FloydSmif (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since "exceptional claims require high-quality sources," I'd be interested in seeing more sources, including academic ones - rather than just putting in the single source and rebutting it. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of interesting notes: First, there is not one single mention of any of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories in the FDR article, despite the fact they are older and more prevalent, and just as stupid. So there is a Wiki precedent for ignoring these kind of things in a bio article. Second, I see someone added a link to the article about Japan's WWII a-bomb program which includes Wilcox's earlier book which claims Japan actually detonated its own a-bomb only a few days after Hiroshima and Nagasaki! It includes the debunking of this claim too. It appears to me that Wilcox is nothing more than a sensationalist hack!! Therefore I'm giving serious consideration, based on these two items, to deleting the entire section. And keeping it out permanently. Fred8615 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, it was I who added the Japan bomb reference.

I honestly do not know how to answer you any longer. Time and time again you keep trying to win on this (see rumour regarding his death above). Your latest entry doesn’t make sense to me: it seems to be another of your view-based arguments. Your latest argument seems to be that because Wilcox is a sensationalist hack we should ignore him: well, the rest of the world is not ignoring him. Wiki has a duty to set the record straight yet you wish to abrogate that responsibility, simply it seems to me because you’ve dug your feet in.

I am relatively new to Wiki discussions so I am at a loss to understand why when the two of us have a difference of opinion then you should feel that yours should hold sway and that you should permanently censor my effort, which I have gone to no small trouble over.

In my defence, and I have no defence if you are determined to have your way, I would refer you to what you said earlier: As I've said, a mention of the book, with a link to an article on it I have no problem with. And as I have said there is no such article extant at the moment. If you are determined to have your way then it will mean you are the one who by an act of omission is furthering the Wilcox theory and is thereby indirectly giving it credence; at least until such an article becomes available.

Rather than be destructive, if you wish, why don’t you be constructive and write your own separate article and include my stuff? Until then, why not allow another’s opinion and just leave well enough alone.

This has gone on too long. If I have failed to convince you then please submit this thing to Wiki arbitration. Thank you.BillMaddock (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What should be in Wikipedia is primarily based on what is verifiable via good sources. Arguing the points and evidence among yourselves is original research and is, well, irrelevant. And as I quote above "exceptional claims require high-quality sources" and this is certainly an exceptional claim. I would like to see more than one source (we only have Wilcox and new articles reporting the content of what he says). In my opinion, that is not enough. If a university press book or journal (for example) were to support Wilcox's claims, I would be more open to it. But as it currently stands, I don't think we have enough good sources to include this "exceptional" material. I suspect any mediation or arbitration would focus on that aspect - not on what you have discussed above about the "facts" of the man's death. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwy: THERE IS NO ARTICLE, THERE IS NO ARTICLE, THERE IS NO ARTICLE. By your reasoning therefore we say nothing and leave the field to this preposterous Wilcox conspiracy theory, in full knowledge he has done it before. The choice is yours: in twenty years from now, when you're sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great Wilcox debate, you won't have to shift him to the other knee, cough, and say, "I shovelled shit in Louisiana." This thing has gone on too long that it has become ridiculous. Please put it to arbitration.BillMaddock (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I must not have made myself clear. Wilcox is the single source and his conspiracy the "exceptional claim" I am talking about. I think the section should be removed. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwy Should you wish to censor my article then, out of courtesy to me for the time I have put into all this, please first put in motion the arbitration process. Thank you.BillMaddock (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not "your" article. It is "not censorship." I appreciate your time, but you also need to understand and follow the guidelines that have been established to make this a useful encyclopedia. Its not a place to simply impress grandchildren. There are other fora on the web to discuss things until they become citable here. If they are not verifiable and citable, they do not belong here. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwy and Fred, I may have a solution (in about 4 days – New Years Eve must be paid homage). Have a look at the Foxnews story below, in particular the reference to Kevin Hymel (in 2008 a co-author with Blumenson [5]). If either of you wants, I can replace my part of this article with a short mention of the Wilcox theory and a reference to the Foxnews story. Let me know. [6] Foxnews story.BillMaddock (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jwy is right. Verifiability is one of the guidelines for articles. And since the major players in this are all dead, and the physical evidence is missing or destroyed, Wilcox's theory has the convenient (for him) attribute of not being 100% verifiable or disproved. Just like his Japanese a-bomb book, where the alleged test site is in North Korea, where no one can go and test for radioactivity or other evidence. Coincidence, or is he carefully picking and choosing his theories? Whatever the answer, he definitely has a history of extraordinary claims, which CANNOT (note I didn't say "are not") be backed by extraordinary evidence. One diary, possibly written by a delusional man or outright liar is not enough. Missing physical evidence or files is not evidence of a conspiracy. Making claims about people who are not alive to defend themselves is not evidence. News reports or reviews of this book are not acceptance of its theory. It's just reporting. Absent any other outside evidence, and given Wilcox's history, I just don't see why this HAS to be included in the article. Fred8615 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"One diary, possibly written by a delusional man or outright liar is not enough." This is not only OR but contradicts everything known about Bazata. He was not only an officer in the OSS during the war but before he died was a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain which is strong evidence against him being delusional or a liar. The war diary (and letters) are also not totally unsupported. Bazata gave a lecture on it in 1979 and another OSS officer Stephen Skubik has backed elements of his claim. The credibility of Wilcox does not count as the claims were made by Bazata not by Wilcox's interpretation of the diaries, all Wilcox did was look for evidence supporting him. That most major newspapers around the world have carried the story is not "just reporting", it means there are enough RS to include mention. Whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant given the facts we currently have as NO ONE has debunked the claims yet. Until someone does so in a RS, to personally debunk the claim in the article violates WP:OR and is unacceptable. Wayne (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, I agree completely with your conclusion that a Wikipedia article is not the place to debunk a published book, and certainly not when the debunking is based upon little more than opinion. That's hardly how an encyclopedia should read. Some of your "facts" about Bazata are wrong, however, apparently based upon an understandable misreading of the Tim Shipman article in The Telegraph. Bazata worked for John Lehman at one time, and it was Lehman who was later a member of the 9/11 commission and an adviser to John McCain. FloydSmif (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Kind of hard to debunk when all the relavent people involved are dead. It also makes it harder for relatives to sue for libel or slander since they are not personally implicated. As for Bazara's record, it doesn't prove he's not a liar or delusional. And the credibility of Wilcox does count. He's the only person who took Bazata's diary and writings and made a book about it. Why? Fred8615 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred and Wayne, have you looked at the Foxnews item that I referred to above and its reference to historian Kevin Hymel? Give me a few days and I’ll rewrite The Wilcox Shooting Conjecture segment in a way which will hopefully satisfy everyone. If you are still not happy then the rewritten segment can go to Wiki arbitration.BillMaddock (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)