|
Two General Apart: Patton and
Eisenhower
by Andrew S. Harding
Introduction
June 6, 1944 General Omar Bradley (1893-1981) led the First Army of the United
States in the famous D-Day landing on the beaches of Normandy. Interestingly,
Bradley was the understudy of another man, General George S. Patton Jr.
(1885-1945). How did Bradley overtake his mentor? What caused the Supreme
Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1979) to give the job to Bradley
when Patton had helped lead the Allies to victory in Sicily only a short time
before? During the 1943 invasion, Bradley had served under Patton, now Bradley
was Patton's commanding officer.
General Patton was an aggressive general; his tactics were unorthodox, but
successful. Why would he not be the commander during the biggest invasion in
United States history? Why would he be used as a decoy rather than be on the
front lines of Normandy? Was this because of the rocky relationship he had with
the Allied Commander, General Eisenhower? How did Patton view Eisenhower and
how did Eisenhower view Patton? This story will be unveiled through these men's
own words and action and with the help of the views other of men involved in
the war.
Through studying primary sources such as the Patton Papers and the Eisenhower
Papers , one is able to grasp the relationship between these two men
[1]. With the words of Patton and Eisenhower, one is able to understand the
relationship through these men's own words, not the interpretation of other
historians.
Bradley's book, A General's Life , is the most credible book aside
from the papers of Patton and Eisenhower, because he was present at the
time.[2] Bradley took rank over Patton in rank and became the commander of the
invasion of Normandy, leaving Patton with the Third Army. Bradley had a close
personal relationship with both men and many times had to be the neutral person
between the two. Bradley had a hard time dealing with that, but knew he had to
be balanced between the two if the war was going to work. I was unable to see
how Bradley's views affected his outlook on both men. He always tried not to
become involved in Patton's and Eisenhower's arguments because sometimes he
disagreed with them and had his own views.
The stories of General James "Jimmy" H. Doolittle (1896-1993), Jimmy
Doolittle Reminiscences , provided his outlook on how Patton and
Eisenhower related [3]. He knew these two during the better times of their
lives, and he shows us that through his story. Many of the stories Doolittle
told are similar to others, that they two were friends however, just had a
difficult work relationship.
The secondary sources tell a different story. They help make certain stories
stand out. These people are historians and consequently they are able to make
an individual appear a certain way. For instances, if an incident occurs
between Patton and Eisenhower, Steven Ambrose (Eisenhower's official
biographer) will report the story differently than Martin Blumenson (Patton's
biographer). Furthermore, examination of John Eisenhower's (General IKE)
and Ladislas Farago (The Last Days of Patton ), will illustrate a
different description than either Ambrose or Blumenson[4].
The Early Years
Eisenhower (known as "Ike" by his friends and allies) and Patton first met in
1918 at Camp Colt in Pennsylvania.[5] The two met again at Camp Meade
[Maryland] in 1919.[6] When Patton was transferred to Meade he moved next door
to where Eisenhower and his wife, Mamie, lived.[7] During this time, Eisenhower
encountered Patton's beliefs and ideas. Eisenhower described Patton as, "tall,
straight, and soldierly looking… high, squeaking voice… with two passions, the
military service and polo."[8] The two formed a bond, because they were both
men of tanks. They loved how tanks worked and how they were used during
wartime. Then in mid-April of that year, Patton was transferred from Meade, to
go to Washington DC. Eisenhower was the man that replaced Patton as the head of
the Tank Corps at Meade.[9] Later that year, Patton returned to Meade and took
his position over Eisenhower again. Patton's rank was higher than Eisenhower's,
however, this never affected their relationship.
John Eisenhower relates that Patton was in the Army as a hobby. Patton and his
wife were rich, and they never needed military pay. Patton loved the Army, he
unlike many others join because of this love not because he needed money.
Patton‘s family had been a military family since the days of the Civil War, and
it was clear from a young age that Patton would join the Army.
Eisenhower's story was also different; he needed the military to overcome his
humble upbringing in Kansas.[10] This did not mean that Patton loved the
military more than Eisenhower, the difference is Patton had money and the life
that many want. It would be a false assumption to believe that Patton enjoyed
the military more because both men had equal love to the United States
Military. The other difference was, Patton came from a wealthy family and
Eisenhower used the military as a better life. Farago states, "Oddly, Ike, the
son of a poor railroad employee from Kansas, and Patton, the frontier
aristocrat from California, got along well."[11]
The reason these two were able to be close friends was because of their shared
passion for the Army and tanks. Without these one would assume, that the two
men would not have interacted with each other because the two came from totally
different backgrounds and they were two totally different kinds of people.
Patton was seen as a crazy man whereas, Eisenhower held the image of his
working class background, a soft-spoken man and held a humble image of himself.
Patton was elder to Eisenhower, by five years. This was five years that Patton
had been in the army and Eisenhower had not. Patton also held two ranks higher
than Eisenhower did, however this still never stopped the two from being
friends until the day Patton died in 1945.[12]
World War I
Both men served in World War I, and at that time, Eisenhower gained positions
on Patton, by earning equal rank as Colonel. This by no means hurt the
relationship between the two; they both were there to complete their respective
duties. Patton, during the war, became commander of the 1st Light Tank
Battalion [April 28, 1919] and then the 2nd Light Tank Battalion [June 6,
1919]. Both times he organized and ran the unit himself. Later he led the 304th
Tank Brigade. On September 26, he was wounded and was sent home later that
year.[13] This is when Patton renewed his friendship with Eisenhower at Camp
Meade.
Early in the war, Eisenhower had received the news of not being shipped of to
war. His job during the first stages of the war was to train the soldiers;
training the 301st Tank Battalion at Camp Meade. Then in March of 1918, he was
given word that he was being sent to France to begin his duty in the Great War.
While the 301st was getting ready, the Army sent Eisenhower to Camp Colt, where
he first met Patton. In October of that year he got his orders to go to France
and lead the 301st Tank Battalion. After his time in France, he was sent back
to Camp Meade where he and Patton would start a trusting friendship.
After both men earned higher ranks [Patton's rank is higher than Eisenhower],
they moved on and did not talk much for the next twenty years of their lives.
John Eisenhower informs the reader that his father never forgot Patton and
remembered his dear old friend when he needed him at the outbreak of World War
II.[14]
A letter written by Patton to Eisenhower in 1926 congratulated Eisenhower on
his graduation from Commander and General Staff College, was one of their only
contacts with each other. Patton was pleased that Eisenhower had graduated
number one in his class. Patton went on to say that everything Eisenhower
learned was important, but the only way the two could test their knowledge was
through warfare. In the letter Patton also sent a copy of his research told
Eisenhower "I don't try to approve solutions any more but rather do what I will
do in war", however, "orders in battle must be written wholly by the general
himself not by a committee of his staff."15 Patton argued that the "victory of
the next war will depend on EXECUTION nor PLANS and the execution will depend
on some means of making the infantry move under fire." Patton also explained
what he and Eisenhower were doing would decide the outcome of the next war.[16]
OutBreak of War:
Patton and Eisenhower's next meeting came in April of 1942. Prior to this
meeting, both men competing for the same position as commander of the European
campaign, a position which Eisenhower later received. Before he received this
position Eisenhower wanted to do something different. He wanted to join his old
friend, who was to go to war while Eisenhower was sitting in a desk job.
Eisenhower wrote to Patton, "Maybe I'll finally get out of this slave seat, so
I can let loose a little with you. By that time you'll be the ‘black jack' of
the damn war."[17] Eisenhower wanted to join Patton on the front lines. He was
hoping he would be sent there by Army Chief of Staff, George Marshall
(1880-1959), however, he was given the rank of Major General and the position
of the United States Commander of the European front.
Eisenhower was now in a dilemma. While plotting the North African invasion, he
was told to pick a commander to lead this front. On August 7, 1942, Eisenhower
held a meeting with Patton, James H. Doolittle, and several other men.
Eisenhower knew who he wanted to lead the operation for him, Patton. Eisenhower
knew what Patton was capable of accomplishing, and knew very little of James
"Jimmy" Doolittle. The only thing Eisenhower knew about him were the Doolittle
Raids (18 April 1942) after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.[18] Doolittle later
recalled that during this meeting, Eisenhower asked them what they would do for
the North African invasion and how they would proceed. Doolittle wrote:
"Georgie was all ready with a very positive, detailed invasion plan." To which
Doolittle replied, "I will not be able to do anything until the air fields are
captured and supplied with fuel, oil, ammunition, bombs, spare parts, and all
the necessary ground personnel."[19] This was not the answer Eisenhower was
looking for, and led to Eisenhower cabling Marshall in his office to say that
he wanted Patton, not Doolittle, on this campaign. Marshall then told
Eisenhower; "You may have anyone you prefer. We still recommend Doolittle."[20]
Eisenhower decided later that he could use another officer to lead this front,
while he would use Patton later, as this would give a young commander the
chance to gain some valuable battlefield experience.[21] Eisenhower thought
that the commander General Lloyd Fredendall (1883-1963) would a fine job thus
leaving Patton to turn his attention to Sicily. Then problems erupted in North
Africa; the Germans were dominating the battles, and Eisenhower needed this
part of the war to be successful. Therefore, he brought Patton to provide new
leadership. Eisenhower believed that Patton was the only man who knew enough
about tanks that could challenge the knowledge of German Field Marshall Erwin
Rommel (1891-1944). Rommel's tank divisions were winning many of the battles
across the Northern Africa dessert, to which Eisenhower needed to make a
change.
Northern Africa Campaign
Patton relieved Major General Lloyd Fredendall in the middle of 1942 in North
Africa. The II [second] Army Corps noticed a big difference between the two
generals. Patton was more organized, and made his men dress and act a certain
way. If a soldier did not obey these rules, he would be fined. If he were going
to serve under Patton, he would do it Patton's way, because there was no other
way.[22]
General Bradley was there upon Patton's arrival in Northern Africa, was also
there to keep his eye on Patton. Furthermore, Eisenhower had sent Bradley there
and wanted him to make sure Patton did not lose his temper and do something he
should not. Eisenhower warned Patton about avoiding "personal recklessness"
before he arrived in Tunisia.[23] Eisenhower knew Patton would calm himself if
Bradley was right there with him. However, Patton knew why Bradley was there,
this is why Patton put in the orders to Eisenhower to make Bradley the II corps
deputy or move him else where. Patton's wish was granted as he noted in his
diary, "Issued an order yesterday detailing Omar N. Bradley as Deputy Corps
Commander." Bradley had before lead his own Corps, however in time he would
"observe Patton as an understudy."[24] Even though Bradley had been named
Patton's deputy, Bradley still sent reports back to Eisenhower on Patton's
behavior.[25]
After Patton took this post, the problems between he and Eisenhower began. The
men in the infantry had been complaining about the lack of air support. This
inspired Patton to criticize the man in charge of air support, Air Marshall Sir
Arthur "Mary" Coningham (1895-1948). Patton said, "[the] total lack of air
cover for our units has allowed German air forces to operate almost at
will."[26] Coningham then said that the II Corps used this "as an alibi for
lack of the success on ground… That II Corps personal concerned are not
battleworthy… Not to allow their [Coningham troops] brilliant and consciences
support of II support to be affected by this false cry of wolf."[27] Following
this statement Coningham's boss, Sir Arthur Tedder (1890-1967) ordered him to
apologize to Patton for what he said. Coningham, along with Tedder, went to
Gafsa to apologize to Patton, who had been told by Eisenhower to take this
apology and move on, but as Bradley says in his book. "A shouting match
occurred… But then in the end Patton accepted a grudging official apology."[28]
How historian Stephan Ambrose reported and Bradley remembered this incident is
completely different. Ambrose writes, "he [Eisenhower] understood completely,
but added that ‘the great purpose of complete Allied teamwork much be achieved
in this theater"[29] Bradley wrote that Eisenhower blamed Patton for the
incident:
[Eisenhower] blamed Patton for the furor and wrote him a childing
letter. "I realize how chagrined you were and why you felt that some public
retraction or apology was indicated… He advised Patton that if in the future he
felt critical of another service it should be expressed in a "confidential
report to the next military superior only."[30] Bradley had said
this letter was further proof to us that in Ike's eyes the British could do no
wrong.[31]
As to which version of this story is true, no one really knows. However, this
is when Patton began to criticize Eisenhower in public. Patton said that
Eisenhower only cared about the British. An example comes from John
Eisenhower's book. Patton said, "It is very noticeable that most of the
American officers here are pro-British, even Ike. I am not, repeat not,
pro-British."[32] The relationship became rockier because even though
Eisenhower said it, one would believe that it hurt Eisenhower for his old buddy
to say these harsh things about him. Patton believed that Eisenhower was more
willing to be acceptable of the British needs over those of the Americans.
Patton's criticisms reappeared during the invasion of Sicily, when he allowed
the British to make the plans rather than the Americans. Eisenhower, along with
Patton and Bradley, had to conform to both sides, since he was the leader of
the Allies as well try to please both President Franklin D. Roosevelt
(1882-1945) and Prime Minster Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965). Since
Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander, he was suppose to make decisions based on
what was best for the Allies, not the Americans or British. Along with, he had
to stay in the guidelines that Roosevelt and Churchill had advised him.
A failed mission occurred with the 34th Division. Patton believed that the
mission should have never been attempted because it was impossible to complete.
However, the British asked for the mission and it was granted to them, even
though Patton protested. Patton would not accept Eisenhower believing whatever
the British told him anymore, that he should make his own mind up and be the
leader.[33] Because Patton felt that Eisenhower was leaning towards being more
pro-British he said, "Ike is more British than the British and is putty in
their hands…God Damn all the British and the so-called Americans who have their
legs pulled…I would rather be commanded by an Arab. I think less than nothing
of Arabs."[34] This demonstrates how their professional friendship suffered
growing tension, because Patton was becoming tired of Eisenhower and visa
versa. Bradley was starting to have these same feelings towards Eisenhower. He
describes this as, "I shared Patton's misgivings about Ike, though I was less
harsh in my private judgment and never criticized him before others."[35]
Evidence of Patton being more critical of Eisenhower than Bradley comes in
Patton's diary, "What an Ass." [36]
Invasion of Sicily
In early 1943 Patton's time was done in Northern Africa because he had secured
that front and the Allies had taken control of Northern Africa. Patton now was
ready to turn his attention towards Sicily. Patton planned out his invasion of
Sicily, but Field Marshall Sir Bernard Montgomery (1887-1976) changed the idea
from where Patton wanted to invade. Patton's plan would have him invading at
Palermo, and Montgomery would enter at Syracuse. Montgomery felt that if Patton
invaded at Palermo, he would be subject to a weak German front and arrive at
Messina before Montgomery.[37] In Montgomery's opinion he needed Patton and
Bradley for support to help him reach Messina, since the English Army, in his
opinion, should lead the Americans into Italy. Montgomery went to General Sir
Harold Alexander (1891-1969) to make sure that his 15th English army had the
right to Messina rather than Patton's Seventh Army. There was nothing Patton
could do, he had to sit back and watch the person he despised the most
[Montgomery] receive the glory he wanted.[38]
Steven Ambrose wrote about the situation, "Eisenhower attempt to appease
Montgomery made both Bradley and Patton furious. The two American generals met;
Patton recorded in his diary that Bradley ‘feels that Ike won't go against
Monty.' Bradley was madder than I have ever seen him and wondered aloud ‘what
the Supreme Commander amounted to.'"[39] Patton also wrote of the situation,
that they should have resigned, "I feel that in such a showdown we would win,
as Ike would not dare to relieve us."[40] Messina was the prize of Sicily,
because if you can control Messina, then invading Italy is simpler. Bradley did
not believe what had happened and told Patton "You can't allow him to do that."
Patton responded with "Sorry Brad, but the changeover happens immediately.
Monty wants the road right away."[41] Patton, according to Bradley, was not
going to go off on a rampage about this because he seriously felt that
Eisenhower was "looking for an excuse" to get rid of him once and for all [42].
On July 10, 1943, the Allied Forces invaded Sicily, with Montgomery at
Syracuse, Patton at the Gulf of Gela, and Bradley 1,000 yards off the
Vizzini-Caltagirone road. Patton and Bradley thought Eisenhower believed
Montgomery and the British were better then the Americans and they should be
the ones who led the Americans to victory. One of Patton's staff officers
related the American thoughts best; we are left to "sit comfortably on our
prats while Montgomery finishes the goddamn war!"[43] The BBC in England also
reported that while the British Armies were fighting the war, the Americans
were swimming and eating grapes. Many listeners believed this, because the BBC
was the main source of information at that time.[44] This was the chance for
Americans to prove themselves once and for all, and Montgomery was taking this
away from Patton and Bradley.[45]
As a result of the problems that had occurred in Northern Africa and the ones
that continued in Sicily, Patton became upset with Eisenhower and Montgomery.
To make matters worse, Patton traveled west to Palermo where he had originally
wanted to land. This upset Eisenhower, Montgomery, and even Bradley. Patton was
going to race against Montgomery, saying that he could capture the city of
Palermo and then race off towards the city of Messina before Montgomery could
arrive.[46]
This move put Eisenhower in a difficult situation because Patton ended up
beating Montgomery to Messina, and people from the United States even President
Roosevelt, praised Patton for what he had done. Patton had gone against the
orders that he should have backed up Montgomery. Eisenhower was very upset with
Patton for not reporting his move to Palermo nor informing him of what his
plans were after arriving in Palermo. Eisenhower had a conversation with his
deputy, Emmet John Hughes (1891-1969) and Hughes described what Eisenhower said
about the situation. "George ruined Monty's career by getting to Messina first;
that Ike is going to send an IG [investigator] to Sicily to ask the soldiers
what they think about their army commander."[47] Eisenhower also said, through
his conversations with Hughes, that he ordered Patton to send an apology to
Montgomery. When Eisenhower went to talk to Patton, Eisenhower chastised him
saying that he needed to inform everyone what he was doing. Patton took this
very hard because when Eisenhower arrived, Patton showed him to his map room
and told him about the invasion of Gela, but Eisenhower was uninterested.
Eisenhower said he must report to Malta, so that he and his staff would know
what kind of air support to supply Patton.
This is a reasonable request from Eisenhower. Patton was not being a good team
player; he was causing problems in the allied font. However, Patton believed
what he accomplishing was right for the war; however, this does not justify his
actions. Bradley said that this was one of those turning points in history,
because this is where the relationship between two old friends cooled. Patton
was upset for not being congratulated for the great victory but instead being
critical the entire time.[48] Patton also said, "but it's most upsetting to get
only piddling criticism when one knows one had done a good job. Ike is now
wearing suede shoes a la British."[49]
Many people saw what Patton did by driving to Palermo to Messina as a great
feat in military history, because Patton drove west to Palermo, on the opposite
side of Sicily, then drove to Messina before Montgomery could arrive south from
Syracuse. John Eisenhower describes this:
Resolved to overcome the obstacle that Alex[ander] had placed in his
path, he sidesslipped Bradley's II Corps westward and then sent it
northwestward to Palermo… Turning eastward along the northern shore of the
island, he reached—and took—the ultimate goal of Messina before Montgomery.
Patton covered himself with glory, and if he was unmerciful in the way he drove
his men, he saved lives by so doing. The enemy never got a chance to dig in on
Patton's front.[50] This demonstrates that not everyone was
upset with what Patton did, even though it was against orders. There were signs
that Eisenhower was happy for Patton's victory, but overall Eisenhower was
upset with Patton for disobeying the orders of Air Marshall Alexander, and
never reporting what he was doing. Eisenhower had a strong case; he was the
commander of all the Army coalition, and if Patton did not obey the plan is how
can the mission be successful? Patton at least should have informed Eisenhower
of his plan, even if Eisenhower did not agree.
To make matters worse, right after Eisenhower had left; the 504th parachute
disaster reached Patton.[51] To stay in good terms with Eisenhower, Patton sent
a cable at once to Eisenhower to inform him of the disaster. Patton did not
know of the disaster during the meeting with Eisenhower since it occurred after
he had left. Since Patton did not know about the disaster he never mentioned
it, but Eisenhower believed that Patton did know about it and waited for him to
leave. This is evident in the cable he sent back to Patton:
You particularly requested me to authorize this movement into your
area…the incident could have been occasioned only by inexcusable carelessness
and negligence on the part of someone… if the person found responsible are
serving under your command, I want a statement of the disciplinary action taken
by you.[52] Patton took this cable as Eisenhower "cussing me
out" and looking for another way of getting rid of him in some fashion.[53]
Eisenhower was losing his faith in Patton, not as a commander, but as a leader,
because Patton had not done his job in reporting problems, his plans, or other
things that he had done.
The Slap
Then something happened that stopped all the praising of Patton and had
everyone calling for his termination. On August 3, 1943, Patton slapped a
private in his unit. Private Paul G. Bennett was in the hospital where Patton
was visiting his injured troops. Then there lay a man without a scratch, no
broken bones, blood, who sat there in tears and said he could not take it, that
his nerves had gotten to him.[54] Patton was furious; he could not believe that
such a man could serve under him. Patton told him:
Your nerves, Hell, you are just a goddamned coward, you yellow-son of
a bitch. Shut up that goddamn crying. I won't have these brave men here who
have been shot seeing a yellow bastard sitting here crying. You're a disgrace
to the Army and you're going back to the front to fight, although that's too
good for you. You ought to be lined up against a wall and shot. I ought to
shoot you myself right now, GOD DAMN YOU![55] Patton then
slapped the soldier a couple of times, knocking off his helmet. Patton ordered
that this man be released because there was nothing wrong with him. Patton then
claimed after the soldier had left, "I won't have these brave boys seeing such
a bastard baby."[56] A week later, Patton did the same thing to a soldier who
complained of battlefield fatigue.[57] These men's nerves might have been poor,
but should there he had been in a hospital for having bad nerves? Could there
have been separate tents; one that had men had physical injuries and other with
emotion difficulties as well. That these two types of injuries are two totally
different and the atmosphere should be different. Patton was out of line for
slapping the man, he was wrong for his actions, however, he also did what he
felt was right for his solider. Patton claimed that he slapped the solider in
hopes to make him mad and put some fight back into his heart.[58] Then Bradley
makes the same statement saying, "He [Patton] was bragging how he had treated
this man to snap him out of being a coward. Thought that if he made the man
mad, he would be mad enough to fight. That men were showing a yellow streak. He
[Patton] didn't agree with me that every man has a breaking point. To George,
everyone who doesn't want to fight was a coward."[59]
Eisenhower was informed of this incident on August 14, 1943, from a nurse who
was present and she requested that Patton be court-martialed for striking a
soldier of the United States Army [60]. Eisenhower had the story hushed up as
long as he could, because he knew going into the European campaign knowing
Patton was going to be one of the combat leaders. David Eisenhower, his
grandson, describes how Eisenhower told his deputy about the situation, "he
would do anything not to relieve him."[61] This does not mean that Eisenhower
did not reprimand Patton for his actions. Eisenhower wrote Patton a letter
telling him what changes needed to occur, along with Patton will still a part
of the team, however needed to learn how to control himself. Eisenhower also
told Patton that this "behavior will not be tolerated in this theater no matter
who the offender may be."[62] Eisenhower also said, "No letter that I have been
called upon to write in my military career has caused me the mental anguish of
this one, not only because of my long and deep personal friendship for you but
because of my admiration for your military qualities."[63] In a letter to
Marshall, Eisenhower wrote the following:
I first wrote him a sharp letter of reprimand in which I informed him
that repetition of such an offense would be cause for his instant relief. I
informed him also that his retention as a commander in my theater would be
contingent on his offering an apology to the two men whom he had insulted. I
demanded also that he apologize to all the personnel of the hospital present at
the time of the incident. Finally I required that he appear before the officers
and representative groups of each of his divisions to assure them that he had
given way to impulse and respect their positions as fighting soldiers of a
democratic nation.[64] Through this, Eisenhower hoped he would
remain friends with Patton, since he had the opportunity to have Patton
court-marshaled and did not. Eisenhower still knew what Patton could and would
do with an army, and he knew what Patton would do to help the Allies win the
war in Europe. He knew this by Patton's past assignments; he always completed
his job, and he provided on the military knowledge that could not been taught.
The argument was made that Patton was one of Eisenhower's best commanders.
There is no doubt about this question; however, the real question lies if he
can lead an entire army without any problems. One cannot question that Patton
was an excellent commander; however, he could never control his tongue. If
Patton had not been the successful commander that he was, it was certain that
he would have been sent home immediately. These acts would not have been
tolerated from someone else, but many times the ends justify the means. Even
though Patton stepped over the line by slapping a soldier, he was successful,
and at the time, it was in the best interest of Eisenhower to keep him around.
Eisenhower knew Patton would be needed to help defeat the Germans. Eisenhower
thought about Patton after the slapping incident. He thought what could he do
with Patton and who George S. Patton Jr. person was, he shared these ideas with
General Butcher:
Ike makes a point that in any army one-third of the soldiers are
natural fighters and brave; two-thirds inherently are cowards and skulkers. By
making the two-thirds fear the possible public upbraiding such as Patton gave
during his campaign, the skulkers are forced to fight. Ike said Patton's method
was deplorable but his result was excellent.[65] Patton was good
at leading his unit, but he could have never commanded the whole entire army.
Steven Ambrose explains, "Patton was an excellent combat commander. By
implication, that was his limit; commanding an army group was beyond his
capabilities."[66] When put under pressure, Patton was unreliable at a certain
point. During a stressful moment, Patton slapped one of his own men when he
should have tried to help the man through his pains. When Patton felt that he
was helping this young man out, by giving him discipline that he needed. Patton
was:
"A child of the First War and his prejudices were those of his
generation of American and British soldiers; no man, he thought should ever
break down, or indeed be allowed to break down in battle. In his eyes courage
and cowardice were alternative choices open to every man no matter what his
emotional stress; furthermore he believed that every man had the power to
choose between the two."[67]
Patton's unreliability was one of the many things that prevented him from being
the leader of Operation Overlord. Ambrose's statement above demonstrates the
central point of Eisenhower's reasoning. He knew Patton was a successful field
commander, but did not know if he was equal to leading of the whole campaign as
Bradley. However, Bradley did not feel the same way as Eisenhower did, he
stated that, "I [Bradley] would have relieved him instantly and would have
nothing more to do with him. He was colorful, but was impetuous… His whole
concept of command was opposite to mine. He was primarily a showman. The show
always seemed to come first."[68] To Bradley there was no reason to have the
behavior of Patton because it hurt the teams more than he helped it. To him the
best thing would have been to send him home at once.
At this time, Eisenhower was planning for the invasion of France and because of
his recent actions; it looked as if Patton would not come a part of the
invasions. Eisenhower was going to make Patton wait and give the Allied Nations
a chance to forget Patton's poor judgment. The relationship between these two
was seriously in danger at this time. On one hand, Patton was criticizing
Eisenhower by calling him British, on the other hand Eisenhower saying he did
not know if he could trust Patton. Patton was also upset with Eisenhower for
not being aggressive enough and appeased to Alexander, Churchill, and
Montgomery. None of these contentions were healthy for a personal relationship
that once was strong. Eisenhower now had to decide the plans for Patton in the
upcoming invasion of continental Europe.
To Patton's surprise, General Bradley received the command of the First Army
for the invasion of Normandy. Patton had worked under Eisenhower for all of
World War II and now he was going to be looking from behind on the biggest task
ever asked for an American to accomplish. Patton had to wait and see what
Eisenhower would do with him. Would behave be a large or small scale role in
the European Theater?
Operation Fortitude
While Patton sat in England, in early 1944, waiting for the news of his next
mission, the orders of Fortitude South were presented to him. As Ambrose
relates, "The capstone to Fortitude South was Eisenhower's selection of Lt.
Gen. Patton to lead the First U.S. Army Group. The Germans thought Patton was
the best commander in the Allied camp and expected him to be the leader of the
assault. Eisenhower…used Patton's reputation and visibility to strengthen
Fortitude South."[69] The Germans thought highly of Patton, because they bought
into his self-promotion and knew of his success in every battle they had
fought. Patton had no say in the matter, it was either this or be sent home.
The plan was as follows:
Eisenhower and the Allied intelligence establishment an attack at the
Pas de Calais, with a subsidiary attack on Norway, and secondary that in the
initial assault waves there would be 10 or more divisions, with a follow-up
capacity of another 65 divisions.[70] This plan would ultimately
allow the real First Army, under Bradley, to enter Normandy without the German
defensive forces that could have been there. Ambrose also points out that even
after June 6, the Germans still thought that the main attack would come at Pas
de Calais, and that Normandy was a feint. The Germans kept troops located at
Pas de Calais in case Patton did invade. To the Germans this also explained the
absent of Patton in Normandy, the Germans believed he was the Allies best;
therefore the main attack was still in the planning.[71] Adolf Hitler
(1889-1945) thought the mission would occur at Pas de Calais and he order
Rommal to keep troops at Calais for the large scale invasion that Patton was to
lead.[72]
Eisenhower had taken advantage of his commander. He knew what the Germans
thought of Patton. Eisenhower had false rumors sent out about Operation
Fortitude. The Germans heard these rumors and believed that Patton was located
in England with the First U.S Army. They realized that this had to be the main
attack, because they had also heard rumors that Bradley was the commander of
the First Army. The Germans did know much about Bradley, so Patton would have
to be the commander over an unknown man.[73] John Eisenhower wrote, "the
Germans did not necessarily believe Ike's announcement of Bradley's seniority;
further, there was much to be said for the Pas de Calais as the place for the
gigantic effort they expected."[74] As Eisenhower and his intelligence staff
worked on planning the invasion of Normandy, he told Patton to remain in
England and stay out of trouble. Patton was unable to do so.
The Knutsford Affair
Patton was at a "Welcome Club" of American GIs, in Knutsford, England in
mid-April 1944. Patton was asked by the organizers to give a speech, he agreed
to as long as there were no reporters or press of any sort. The organizers
promised him this, and he went. At this speech he said, "that the British and
the American are two people separated by a common language. Since it is evident
destiny of the British and Americans rule the world, the better we know each
other the better job we will do."[75] There was only one small problem with
what he said; he had forgotten about the Russian Allies. Patton claimed he did
mention them and that he was set up. In Martin Blumenson's book, Patton: Man
Behind the Legend, he says Patton said, "British and Americans, who,
together with the Russians, were bound to rule the world."[76] This same thing
also comes from Bradley, writes that Patton said, "since it is the evident of
the British and Americans—and of course the Russians—to rule the world, the
better we know each other, the better job we will do."[77] The same claim comes
from in Stanley Hirshson's book General Patton: A Soldier's Life.
However, in the papers the next day, it said that that Patton never mentioned
the Russians. Ambrose and John Eisenhower also state that Patton said nothing
about the Russians.[78] Only those people who were there that day know what was
said, and the true story will probably never be told.
This put Eisenhower in even worse trouble than the slapping incident, because
now Patton had upset the Russians, whom Eisenhower was having a difficult time
pleasing anyway. After the incident, Eisenhower wrote to Patton saying, "I am
thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt
your all-round judgment, so essential in high military positions."[79]
Eisenhower was right, Patton could not control his tongue, and thus he would
never earn the respect of Eisenhower or Bradley. If Eisenhower thought he could
have won this war without Patton, he would have immediately removed him from
his position. In a letter to Eisenhower Marshall said, "you can carry the
burden of responsibility [keeping Patton] as to the success of OVERLORD."
Marshall told Eisenhower if thought Overlord would work without Patton, "all
well and good." If not, "then between us we can bear the burden."[80]
To make the story even more interesting, Patton ‘s claim may have been correct.
He believed that the reporters of Britain or even his own commanders had set
him up. Patton said to Eisenhower after he had sent him the letter. "You
probably are damn fed up with me…but certainly my last alleged escapade smells
strongly of having been a frame-up in view of the fact that…the thing was under
the auspices of the (British) Ministry of Information."[81] Then Anthony
Cave-Brown offers a strong, however, controversial, interpretation:
Was the "Knutsford Affair" part of the Fortitude deception scheme? If
it was, then the Allied high command had gambled not only with Patton's
reputation but his career. They were certainly not above that kind of
manipulation, but there was never any proof at the time. Only after Fortitude
was buried did evidence emerge that the LCS and the Allied Supreme Command, for
reason of deception, had indeed played with Patton's reputation. But the
devices used to advertise Patton would prove to be artless compared to the
stratagems that were employed to create his fictitious command—the Quicksilver
army group, First U.S. Army Group.[82] This is a strong
statement to bring up against the Allied Commanders. How could this have
occurred? Would Eisenhower have ruined his old friends reputation [what was
left of it] just to make sure that Fortitude was successful? John Eisenhower
said his father, "put no faith in Fortitude. He did not believe that deception
plans made any difference in war, and the more ambitious they were, the more
likely they were to fail."[83] Since Eisenhower had little confidence in
Fortitude, would he try to make sure the plan would work and make sure that
that the Germans would believe this plan? If Patton were not the commander of
the First Army, there would have been no need for him to make a statement like
this [referring to the Knutsford speech]. However, if he was the commander of
the First Army, the Germans would think Patton was back to his old antics, it
was expected of Patton to make these comments. This was expected because Patton
always tended to speak on issues when he had allegations brought against him.
Many of his problems came when he spoke out when he was in a time of trouble or
when his actions brought repercussions against him.
On the other hand, was this even Eisenhower's work? As of right now, no one
knows if Eisenhower was setting up Patton or if he was at all. Bradley wrote,
that the "British Press Association broke the rules [censorship] and released
the story, omitting the Russians reference, leaving the impression that the
United States and Britain would rule the postwar world."[84] With censorship on
British press Eisenhower, Roosevelt, or Churchill could have stopped this news
from being reported. They could have orders all British press to stop their
printing of the Patton story, thus, ending the problems with this situation.
Conclusion
What happened to these best friends? Two men that once considered each other
comrades were arguing about major issues. One can only conclude Eisenhower
chose Bradley over Patton because he knew he could trust Bradley. Patton was a
warrior and would do anything to end a war. Whereas, Bradley was calm and would
wait for the proper time, he would follow the orders of Eisenhower. One must
consider all of Patton's mistakes; not following orders in Sicily, slapping the
two soldiers, criticizing Eisenhower in public, and the Knutsford Affairs.
Patton could never keep his mouth shut long enough to allow Eisenhower to give
him a position of high command. This pattern continued after Eisenhower gave
Patton yet another chance as commander of the Third Army, in March of 1944.
Patton brought the Third Army into France after Bradley invaded Normandy, in
early August of 1944. Patton was his old self, just slightly quieter this time.
He still attacked where he felt necessary, because he believed he knew where
the Europeans campaign should advance next. The Third Army moved at a
heretofore speed, many times up to sixty miles a day and attacked hard and
fast. Patton had built this unit to the personal level of himself. These men
did not necessarily care for Patton, however, they knew he was the best choice
for them to come back home. Patton still moved at his own speed, however
Eisenhower found a way to stop him, by stopping his supplies lines. In an
interview given by Patton in September of that year, the question was asked,
how long are you going to be staying here [position unknown]? Patton answered,
"[Not] Till we get supplies… There is no point in making a slow advance…"[85]
Bradley related something that Eisenhower said in summarizing why he did not
use Patton on D-Day, "Ike was unwilling to consider Patton for any job higher
than an army commander. ‘George Patton continues to exhibits some of those
unfortunate personal traits of which you and I have always known and which
during this campaign caused me some most uncomfortable days…"[86] In a
conversation with Bradley, Eisenhower said, "I'm fed up… If I have to apologize
publicly for George once more, I'm going to have to let him go, valuable as he
is…."[87] However, Eisenhower also said; "but as an army commander under a man
who is sound and solid, and who has sense enough to use Patton's good
qualities…he should do as fine a job as he did in Sicily."[88] Eisenhower also
believed; that "Patton's strength is that he thinks only in terms of attack as
long as there is a single battalion that he can keep advancing." Eisenhower
believed that he was the only one who could control Patton and that no one else
could stand up to his wrath.[89] Thus, Eisenhower knew how to handle Patton so
he would make sure that he was under his leadership. He knew that Patton would
not listen to Montgomery, because Patton could not tolerate Montgomery. Bradley
would have a hard time even though the two were close friends, because it would
be almost impossible for him to control Patton as he was Patton's long time
understudy.
By giving the Third Army to Patton, he was giving Patton another chance.
Ultimately, Patton ruined his chance as commander of the Third Army. Patton
ordered the killing of German POWs while surrendering because he said they
could not be trusted. Patton's actions were going too far and Eisenhower could
not allow this to happen for Patton was going to have to change his ways.
However, Patton responded with; "If you order me not to, I will stop.
Otherwise, I will continue to influence troops, the only way I know, a way
which so far has produced results." Then Eisenhower told him, "Go ahead, but
watch yourself."[90] Patton did not believe what he told his troops was wrong,
because he believed, "Some fair-haired boys are trying to say that I kill too
many prisoners. Yet the same people cheer at the far greater killings of Japs.
Well the more I killed, the fewer men I lost, but they don't think of
that."[91] Thus, Patton was convinced that what he was doing was not wrong.
Eisenhower however knew Patton could not continue his antics. Patton should
have not kept killing all of the POWs he came a crossed, he should have taken
these men into captivity.
Typically, Patton opened his mouth again, saying that the Nazis were better
than the Russians were in Late 1944. He also compared Nazis to Republicans and
Democrats because Nazis only cared about themselves as do the Republicans and
Democrats. Patton said of the Russians:
Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going
to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation. Why not do
it now while our Army is intact and the damn Russians can have their hind end
kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the
German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the
bastards.[92] These actions were all Eisenhower could handle; he
could not cover this one up and had no choice but to relieve Patton of his
command. Patton was personally hurt by the loss of the
Although Patton was removed from his position, whenever he and Eisenhower were
together, "the bond of the friendship was close and firm"[93] However, the two
could not overcome Patton's actions and the words Eisenhower said to Patton.
Patton wanted congratulations from Eisenhower and never felt they were given to
him. These two men will go down in history as two of the greatest military men
to have ever lived. The difference between the two is that Eisenhower is looked
at as a hero; as he was a President and Five Star General, whereas, Patton will
be considered a lunatic. However, if one looks at Patton's combat skills they
were second to none.
Those who have analyzed the relationship between these two men seem to agree on
one basic point. Eisenhower was the master and Patton was his pit bull. This
can be seen in two places; the title of John Eisenhower's chapter about Patton
and Eisenhower entitled, "Ike and Patton: The Master and the Pit Bull."[94]
General Doolittle said the same thing, that when Eisenhower released Patton, it
was like releasing an English pit bull, once you let him go it was hard to make
him stop.[95] This is why Patton could not be the commander of D-Day; this
invasion had to go perfectly, and Bradley was given the job over Patton.
Bradley inspired more confidence. Whereas Patton inspired fear in his men,
however to him if they feared him, they would fight for him.
Early December 1944 in Mannheim, Germany, George Patton was in a car accident
that later ended his life. Eisenhower was not in Europe when the accident
occurred and never saw his old friend again. Eisenhower never really talked
about the death of his old friend, it was something personal to him and he kept
it to himself. However, he did say one thing about his old friend out of
respect:
He was one of those men born to be a soldier, an ideal combat leader
whose gallantry and dramatic personality inspired all he commanded to great
deeds of valor. His presence gave me the certainty that the boldest plan would
be even more daringly executed. It is no exaggeration to say that Patton's name
struck terror at the heart of the enemy.[96] Patton's body was
never allowed to be transferred back to America after his death, because all
men that died in Europe were to be buried in Europe. It was believed that
Patton wanted to be buried in his favorite place, West Point. Instead his body
lies in the American Army Cemetery in Hamm, Luxembourg. Bea Patton wanted her
husband to be buried at West Point, however, it was not allowed because of the
rule that bodies where not shipped back over seas. This was not to show
favoritism to certain officers over others. Stanley Hirshson stated that Bea
and Patton's associates "agreed that he [Patton] desired to be buried at West
Point."[97] It was also believed by Hughes, Eisenhower's assistant, that he
knew Patton wanted to be buried at West Point; however, he would rest among the
rest of his troops at Luxembourg.[98] Eisenhower never replied to Bea after she
sent cables to him, to have Patton buried at West Point, instead Patton was
buried at Hamm without Eisenhower's interference.
Eisenhower knew that Patton was a great general, however, he was not capable of
leading the entire army, because it would have failed under him because he was
not reliable. He should be remembered for his feared Third Army, the race with
Montgomery to Messina, and his aggressive attitude, not the incidents that
tarnish his career. Patton was the model of how some Americans carry themselves
today; we think of ourselves as winners.
John Eisenhower spoke of his father and Patton saying, "the personal
relationship between Ike and Patton is unimportant compared to their
contributions to the war in Europe. As the result of an earlier friendship, the
two men made a formidable team. Bradley has stated, "the war against Hitler was
furthered immeasurably by the days Ike and George were young together."[99] The
friendship between Patton and Eisenhower will be forgotten, however, the
advances during World War II will never be forgotten. The two made a team,
along with Bradley and others, that drove the Nazi's back to Germany and ending
the war. There friendship never repaired, however, what was started in 1919
changed the world forever as we know it, because without these two men, WWII
could have been a completely different story.
Footnotes and Bibliography
Click here to see the Footnotes and
Bibliography
Written by Andrew S. Harding 
ASHarding@manchester.edu
Copyright © 2004 Andrew S. Harding
Andrew Harding is a American History major at Manchester College in North
Manchester, IN. Two General's Apart is his Senior Thesis submitted to the
History faculty at Manchester to receive his Bachelor of Sciences degree. You
can contact Andrew at ASHarding@manchester.edu
* Views expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent
those of MHO.
|
|
Polish
Campaign
