Do you agree or disagree with General George S. Patton's "wrong enemy" quote?

Question

BCA6010 · Accepted Answer

I wrote an extensive paper on Patton over a decade ago and the short answer is no. Furthermore, there's a lot of missing context whenever this quote gets brought up.

First of all, you may notice that pretty much the only time Patton's name gets invoked as a positive thing is in the context of aggressive military tactics. What you probably don't know and never heard is that he was literally copying Erwin Rommel's doctrine from the Blitz, and while they're both famous for this, it resulted in large numbers of pointless deaths (under both Generals) due to logistics being unable to keep up, tanks having to be abandoned due to lack of fuel or parts, etc. To this day however, the US Army in particular pretends Patton was the gold standard; in reality, he was simply better at motivating the troops than his peers in Europe, outperformed by MacArthur in almost every way broadly, and he'd probably be suppressed from history if MacArthur hadn't fallen out of favor during Korea. Patton was ideologically a hardcore antisemite; his personal diaries sound like they're translated straight out of something Goebbels would've said. Furthermore, he was a frothing at the mouth warmonger, and openly lamented that in his age, WW2 would be his last war. In other words, Patton actually was pretty much everything in a cartoonish depiction of a Nazi general, just in a different uniform and therefore it's fine.

On the other hand, he was right about the Soviets. Our education/history since the war has severely whitewashed the actions of the Russian government and military ever since, most importantly the fact that they were allied with and co-conspirators with Hitler during the invasion of Poland. There's a lot of reasons for this, most of which boil down to the winners of a war dictating history, widespread communist sympathy in the Roosevelt administration, and even close advisors under Eisenhower.

contentious · Accepted Answer

Ideologically I don't see how it would much of a difference. Both Fascism and Marxism are derived from Hegel's ideas. They are two sides of the same coin.

"Fascism was the totalitarian cooperative and ethical state the final collectivist synthesis of nationalism, syndicalism, and actualism" – Gregor

Syndicalism rises out of Marxist syndicates. They are trade unions or communes or publicly traded corporations as we know them today. So fascism is basically just communism with some minor mystical disagreements with the socialist. Both Marxism and Fascism lead to totalitarian overlords that make laws against religion and strip human freedoms making everyone a slave to the state with the exception of the party. They have the same collectivist Hegelian goals which directly oppose American individualism and freedom. Neither side benefit us. That said, during WWII Italian fascists for more tolerant of different races and less genocidal than either National Socialism (Nazism) or Marxist-Leninism. How does it make much of a difference? If you sided with Italian fascist, you'd still side with national socialists (Nazis) and Islamist leading to the same end goal of a genocidal collectivist state in Europe with aspirations of world domination. If you side with the socialist Russians you still end up with a genocidal collectivist state in Europe with aspirations of world domination. The end result is the same, but the borders differ slightly. In reality America should not have fought for either side, but rather should have worked on our own technology and development advanced far beyond the rest of the world while they weakened each other. America First.

purplepoppy · Accepted Answer

America didn't fight on the side of the communists. France, Belgium, the UK etc were not communists. True, Russia was communists but allie forces were made up of various political ideologies and in such times you can't be fussy who you get into bed with. America fought because they knew if Germany conquered Europe then they would use the resources to threatened the USA.

The mistake the west made was not insuring the right people took power in Russia afterwards.

OneViewpoint · Answer

George S Patton was a capable general in some situations because he was an authoritarian asshole who didn't care about his men nearly as much as he cared about his own glory and place in history. No one ever accused Patton of being a great leader or thinker. He had to be slapped down and disciplined in WWII. What was used to punish him was taking him out of the fight and depriving him of the glory he was desperate for. He was a mechanic who followed a limited dogma. Successful at times but ultimately a very simple minded and flawed man.

Eisenhower on the other hand was a leader, thinker, administrator, and visionary. He coordinated the US and overall Allied defense of Europe including a massive logistics effort, came home and served as president, and warned us about the rise of the military industrial complex that was born in WWII. Patton meanwhile disappeared into history as a severely flawed personality.

So the idea that we should have been fighting alongside sociopaths like Hitler and Mussolini was pure stupid dogma that serves to illustrate Patton's flaws. And the idea that we could have steamrolled Stalin without stopping after Germany fell was equally stupid dogma. We still had Japan to worry about and Europe was devastated and needed to rebuild. They had no appetite for invading Russia. The US was also weary of war and the spending / sacrifice to support it. Was never gonna happen. What we got was probably the best possible scenario.

WindAtMyBack · Answer

It's the lesser of two evils. The US knew full well that the Soviets were the enemy. But you don't always have the luxury of picking and choosing who you deal with. The US and probably every other country, has dealt with some pretty shady characters because it was the best alternative at the time.

There is no way of knowing how things would have turned out if this alternate history had actually happened. Patton could not know and neither could anyone else.

No no, I don't think we fought the wrong side. The Soviet Union was a necessary evil to defeat Germany.

Danzigdawson · Answer

It is not known whether he actually said that or not. This quote is apparently from a book (Bodyguard of Lies Volume II by Anthony Cave Brown) that's known to be biased and sometimes inaccurate.

However, it is true that Patton liked the nazis better than the soviets. He was World War 2's trump in some ways. He took credit for things that he was not entirely responsible for. He despised everything 'weak' in his eyes such as soldiers being hospitalized for shell shock (now known as PTSD). He excepted his soldiers to be superhumans: never fall back, always hold their ground, never be scared, never show weakness in any way. He also was a loudmouth who acted tough: he had a huge ego and was kind of a racist.

Syntosi · Answer

I mean, he is objectively wrong here. His argument for fighting the Soviet Union is that he believed the conflict between USA and USSR was inevitable and that it did not make sense to delay it or get distracted with fighting other factions such as the Nazis before the USSR was already defeated.

Turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, the conflict between USA and USSR was not inevitable and entirely preventable. The USSR no longer exists and Russia is no longer a credible threat to USA. A world where USA followed Pattons desire for war with the USSR would objectively have been a worse timeline than we currently live in.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Despite the fact that I do not support the idea of military, except for defending one's own home, and AT HOME! - I think that:

military personnel is there to execute the decisions of their governments. Not to discuss them or to engage in own political activism of any kind.

Patton was -no doubt- a successful warrior. But he also was an asshole in other fields.

Not mentioned - Eisenhower: as the master at that time had failed to correctly use Patton as what he was: a tool only.

Patton's view on Jews... well. It's everyone's right to not like specific people or types.

Back then it was the Jews, presently it's the Mexicans.

Line up, and: ''Next, please''.

DonaldDarko · Answer

Disagree the Nazis were essentially the same as the Soviets though both will deny it. Hitler would have spread his brand of socialism all over Europe. He might have prevented the mass migration that may now kill Europe but he probably would have collapsed just like the Soviets did.

exitseven · Answer

No, but he was right about this. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other fellow die for his."

RedInnocent69 · Answer

There’s some nuance. Like Churchill, Patton knew the Soviet Unions would quickly become the enemy and that the relationship with them during the war was one of convenience and pragmatism. He just didn’t have much political subtlety or filter

Twalli · Answer

We declared war against Japan. Germany and Italy declared war against us. They decided to fight against us. We didn't really have a choice.

beefcakebradybatson · Answer

So Patton was a Fascist. Who knew? (My maternal uncle William "Bud" Turner The Younger fought under Patton in World War Two.)

TwoToTooTutu2 · Answer

Kinda. Adolf was a more direct threat. But no shot his incompetent ass could achieve his goals.

Anonymous · Answer

He was half right. After defeating Germany, we probably should have continued on to Moscow. But we definitely needed to defeat Germany.

SotiCoto · Answer

Both sides are wrong.

pjohnny · Answer

I am agree for his quote

OddBeMe · Answer

He never said that.

Do you agree or disagree with General George S. Patton's "wrong enemy" quote?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you agree with this quote about wars?

Do you agree or disagree with General George S. Patton's "wrong enemy" quote?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you agree with this quote about wars?

We're glad to see you liked this post.