Talk:George S. Patton/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

February 2017

Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anti-Semitism Why is there no mention of Patton's extreme anti-Semitism? (81.159.6.131 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)) 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

@Monopoly31121993(2):, 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. Monopoly31121993(2), 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, Monopoly31121993(2) reveted again, apparently seeking to have a dialogue via edit summaries, which is not how content is discussed. Monopoly31121993(2), 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)

Denazification

That he trivialized denazification is not cited. I only found it on History.com , which is marked as generally unreliable Wikipedia:GUNREL. It can be found in intro, just cntrl+f nazification. Captchacatcher (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Antisemitic Views

It is not clear to me in this section whether he was talking about Jews as a race, or just the fact that the Jews were treated worse than others, and thus were in even poorer condition. Jokem (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Really? This quote clearly shows that General Patton considered the Jews subhuman like the Nazis did, the only thing he disagreed with was the mass genocide of the Jews. In other quotes, he complains about the "semitic and communist influence in the American mainstream media" which "criticizes him and German society". There is also his pre-coldwar quote about Russians as "Asians = barbarians who doesn't value human life." Patton was a psychopath (judging by his treatment of a wounded American soldier whom he beat and wanted to shoot) and an ordinary ideological fascist of the time. But at the same time he was most talented american general of WW2. History is not always "good guys" vs "bad guys" like it on Hollywod, you see. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, Really. Calling him a psychopath is POV. He had a temper and did not tolerate cowardice, this does not rise to the level of mental illness. Jokem (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That was not so much about Jews as about all displaced persons found in German camps [1]. That was bad. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) I am here. All literature on this subject, time period and particular quote (and dozens of others made by Patton specifically about DP Jews) make no debate on who he was referring to when he wrote these words in his diary. Taken out of context without proper sourcing and follow-up leaves the uninformed reader with the personal subjective to define "they" as they would wish to interpret. The NYTimes article does not even remotely refer to this quote (or anything else in the article) to "all" DPs but specifically and only "Jewish DPs". As does this article: [2] Richard Cohen: "If they (the Jewish DP) ...", and this: [3] Jewish Library - Eisenhower quote specifically about the Jewish DPs: "we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them ... One is led to wonder whether the German people, seeing this, are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy." The “military guard” for these Jewish DPs was Patton’s idea. [4] Spartacus Educational: "George Patton received a report written by Earl G. Harrison about the way the Jews in Germany were being treated by the US Army after the war. Patton wrote about the report in his diary on 15th September, 1945" (the very quote in question) Politico: "The orders from above—Eisenhower wanted him to confiscate the houses of wealthy Germans so Jewish survivors could live in them—embittered Patton." Patton wrote: “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. While Eisenhower ordered him to stop “mollycoddling Nazis". 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.”

Please provide sources that back the claim of the editors in questions who have stated only person opinions about the term "displaced persons" as being "all" in regards to this particular quote. History surrounding the impetus for Patton writing in his diary proves why he wrote the words and to whom he was referring. No source shows Patton referring to any other DP during this time with the same terminology or language as he does when he speaks of the Jewish DPs in letters, diaries and recorded personal conversations. In fact, he glorifies the Nazi prisoners and heralds them as heroes. All historical and expert sources confirm that Patton was clearly referring to Jewish DP. If the quote needs to be accompanied by further sources or addition content to better the understanding for readers, then this can be accomplished. But until an editor can provide reliable and clear sources equal in number that state Patton was not referring to Jewish DPs to those that back the claim that he was in this quote, then it must remain in the section.

The above discussion was / is highly subjective and personal in opinion not relating to this subject (mental illness, pre-cold war). This discussion - as you directed me to via bold reversion - is not a consensus. The fact that the quotes that stand in section currently directly relating to "Patton [referencing the] Jewish survivors in displaced persons camps which he oversaw" proves what his active duty was at the time and who he was referring to. Maineartists (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Couple few things... I did not "direct you to this discussion", just the talk page in general, as BRD suggests you should've started a dicussion instead of reverting that edit again. But if you would rather tack on your comments to this thread, so be it. As for your comments, they are rather lengthy and you didn't provide a tl;dr version, so it'll take me a bit to digest and respond. Meanwhile, the edit you reverted was first added by Harry Sibelius and then first reverted by Hohum before you or I arrived on the scene, so they should be pinged and given an opportunity to take part here. And so with that... we'll go from there. Ttys - wolf 17:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a fuller version of the quote from his diary, commenting on a report written by Earl G. Harrison about the way the Jews in Germany were being treated by the US Army after the war

One of the chief complaints is that the DP (Displaced Person) are kept in camps under guard. Of course Harrison is ignorant of the fact that if they were not kept under guard they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts and should eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged.

The brilliant Mr. Harrison further objected to the sanitary conditions. Again being ignorant of the fact that we frequently have to use force in order to prevent the inmates - Germans, Jews and other people - from defecating on the floor when ample facilities are provided outside.

— https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWpatton.htm

The second phrase suggests he is lumping all DP's together and not singling out Jews for that comment.

I believe this later quote from the same diary entry is far more damning of him though, and is quite specific:

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.

However, the "lower than animals phrase" is already used in the section. It seems redundant to use two quotes from the same short diary entry, especially when the existing entry in the article covers his opinion emphatically, while the one recently reverted is one open to question.

(Hohum ^@) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As I was not the OP nor the editor that reverted him, I addressed the editor who reverted me (without any history summary, by the way, except WP: BLD and a directive to go to the Talk Page). If what you say is correct, then Hohum should have brought the discussion here. I provided more than an adequate history summary (TL:DR) to warrant my revert. That being said, I tacked it onto this discussion because your initial summary directive was lacking in specifics, to say the least. So "going to the Talk Page" and seeing a section on Anti-semitic views and a discussion on DPs; I gathered this was your intent. My apologies if you were merely telling me where to go in general. Regardless, it is unproductive to point out "should haves" when the topic at hand is the above discussion. Lengthy or not, if my summary was not enough to warrant a reversion, then it stands to reason sources with extracted quotes to save time will have to suffice. Let us proceed and not divert from the task at hand. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Maineartists (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems a clear case of why primary sources are a problem. Should we not find a good secondary source that includes the context? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jwy: There are plenty of secondary sources. See above. @Hohum (talk · contribs) If there is such a debate as to whether or not Patton was specifically generalizing all DPs in this specific quote, even though related Patton correspondences link exact verbiage to his speech on Jewish DPs solely, then we should provide separate supporting sources to back the claim that Patton spoke derogatory of other DPs at this time (Nazi prisoners, Jewish supporters) separate from what he said specifically about Jewish DPs. It is difficult to know from a personal editorial standpoint who Patton is talking about at specific times in his writings. Here he is speaking of all DPs: "gain being ignorant of the fact that we frequently have to use force in order to prevent the inmates - Germans, Jews and other people - from defecating on the floor when ample facilities are provided outside." But here he is specifically talking about Jewish DPs: "the camps had been clean and decent before the arrival of the Jewish DPs who were “pissing and crapping all over the place.” Likewise, Patton did not say such quotes for all DPs: “the displaced sons-of-bitches in the various camps are blooming like green trees" much like the original quote: "they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts", but specifically for Jewish DPs. But I am not allowed to make that connection as personal opinion. It must be backed by reliable secondary sources. When experts and historians in the field specifically draw definitive conclusions that Patton was referring to Jewish DP, then there can be no debate. However, I'm willing to stop the splitting hairs and work for the betterment of the section. I do feel there is more to be said on this topic. If you feel there is too much ambiguity about this particular DP reference, then there is much more that Patton said and wrote about the Jews during this time that was not in his diary. Am I correct that your only objection was that of redundancy within the same source and not of an expansion on the section as a whole? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

My position is that using unambiguous quotes supported by reliable secondary sources conveys information the most clearly. Also, yes, using multiple fragments from the same couple of paragraphs of his diary to restate the same information is redundant, and opens up potential accusations of cherrypicking repeatedly from one "event".

Additionally, the best reliable sources would be from educators, historians, etc. Not journalists. (Hohum ^@) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who added the following: "If they were not kept under guard, they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts, and would eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged."

When it was reverted by @Hohum, his excuse was, "This is a comment about all displaced persons, which isn't only Jews, and it's unclear whether it's antisemitic, or an attempt to prevent reprisals and deaths."

I actually agree that the quote may not specifically refer to Jews. If he is indeed talking about DPs generally, and not Jews specifically, then I can see your point in suggesting that it does not belong under "Antisemitism". When I added the quote, I believed that it added fuller context as to why Patton made those anti-Jewish remarks, as he believed they would become a danger to civilians if they were to escape.

Where I would take serious issue is your remark that it's unclear whether Patton's desire was "antisemitic" or "an attempt to prevent reprisals and deaths." I do not see why there has to be dichotomy between the two. It's like asking whether someone really dislikes Woody Allen's films, or if they're just antisemitic. Sometimes, the answer is both.

What I do think would be an incredibly useful addition to the "Antisemitism" section, whether my contribution is kept or not, are dates for Patton's antisemitic journal entries. This is especially important, as Patton had remarked in Spring of 1945 on his visit to the Ohrdruf concentration camp on the brutality of the Germans towards their prisoners (in a letter to Eisenhauer, not yet included in this article.) Making clear whether Patton's antisemitic remarks regarding Jewish prisoners preceded or anteceded his visit to Ohrdruf is very important to understanding his thinking. Is it not incredibly valuable to know whether Patton first visited the concentration camps (detailed in this article), decrying the conditions there in a letter to Eisenhauer, (not yet in this article), but later came to blame the conditions in the camps on the prisoners themselves (also not yet in this article), or whether this happened in the reverse order?

I agree that if the quote regarding DPs is not in fact about Jews (though I believe it is, if not specifically and exclusively) it probably does not belong in the antisemitism section, though I think the remark does add value to the article by putting into context Patton's opinions regarding Jews. After all, the quotes used to illustrate Patton's antisemitism in this article are entirely quotes regarding Jews in concentration camps, and not Jews of any other kind. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

My 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply below still applies. Your logic above might be correct, but it is original research - unless it is cited by non-primary, reliable resource(s). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I believe the source I used when I added the quote was a secondary source: a Washington Post article by a Jewish author commenting on Patton's diary entries, and making the assumption that the "Displaced Persons" referred to in the primary-source (Patton's diary) were Jews. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My point about the dates is simply that the dates of Patton's letters and diary entries have been very difficult for me to find, and I think that the dates would be easier to find if I had the primary-source (the diaries). Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hohum@Jwy@MaineartistsSo, shall I revert the edit to include my addition of the quote on displaced persons, portraying them as Jews, now that it is clear that my source was a secondary-source which provided commentary? Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Harry Sibelius Although I am confident that Patton was indeed referring to Jewish DP in this specific quote, I must agree that consensus errs on the side of ambiguity to uninformed readers when the quote stands alone. Without supporting the quote with addition sourced content to explain who Patton was referencing, the argument for both sides can still be presented; and to include all of the above just to validate this one term seems a bit undue weight. Unless the section itself is expanded to show more examples of Patton's anti-semtism to include this quote with the RS named above, I think the quote that is there now is sufficient. But I will wait to hear what @Hohum and @Jwy have to say. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing either side of the discussion, just pointing out that ANY interpretation of the primary source should be supported in the article by secondary sources(s) (not just here on this talk page). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hohum: Agreed. @Jwy: Agreed. Maineartists (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone still have a problem with the inclusion of this quote:

"If they were not kept under guard,” Patton wrote in his diary, “they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts, and would eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged.”

The objections, I seem to remember, were that it was not clear whether he was referring to Jews specifically or not, and that the source I used was primary (it wasn't; it's from a Washington Post article analyzing Patton's diaries). Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written mostly in summary style, not with numerous quotations, and the paragraph already has five quotations from Patton. Per WP:OVERQUOTING, overuse happens when "quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased" or "dominate the article or section", and "Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text." A sixth quotation from Patton, especially a long quotation, is probably WP:UNDUE here. If the paragraph is expanded, concise descriptions summarizing WP:BESTSOURCES should be emphasized instead. Llll5032 (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. The quotations from Patton in this section are not all regarding the same subject, though. One is about denazification, three are about Jewish DPs, and one is about the Jewish influence on the press. These are separate subjects. We already have three other basically interchangeable quotes form Patton on Jewish DPs: "This applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals" "stinking mass of humanity" "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". We could remove at least one of these, since they basically attest to the same thing, and replace it with the "locusts" quote, since it adds understanding of Patton's reasoning behind his actions in a way that is currently lacking. There is even a quote from Martin Blumenson in this section, meant to summarize Patton's actions during the occupation, suggesting that the reason behind them was insanity, but no quote from Patton himself on the subject. This seems undue, considering that Patton himself gave an explanation for his actions that is not currently quoted in the article. Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Longstanding content usually gets more deference than newly proposed content (see WP:EDITING and WP:EDITCON), but perhaps other editors will favor removing of one of the longstanding quotations. Harry, do any WP:BESTSOURCES consider the "locusts" quotation to be important? The source you cite for it is a WP:RSOPINION source (which means it is in a reliable publication but is marked as "opinion"); although it may be usable, it is not considered as good as a high-quality book or high-quality journal article. If you can show that WP:BESTSOURCES consider the "locusts" quotation important to understanding Patton, then you could make a stronger argument for including it based on WP:DUEWEIGHT. Last, are you certain that paraphrasing is inadequate for explaining his actions, and why? Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's actually a pretty good paraphrase you've made, except that it doesn't quite reflect Patton's fear that many of the prisoners themselves would end up shot, or that he would have to re-arrest them eventually after letting them go. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

All right, I tried a different paraphrase, aiming to stay concise. Llll5032 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't imagine viewing the life of a ww2 officer through the uberwoke 202?'s lense will go over well.

I can't imagine criticizing the man who literally fought and defeated Hitlers 3rd Reich.

I just feel his actions here might outweigh any words. Jjmanning25 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You obviously can imagine it, because you just posited it. Nowhere have I criticized General Patton, and I am not sure anyone else here has, either. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)