General Patton was a Leica-nut!

A few more historical errors to correct:

1. Re "Patton" is a "whitewash" - the film tells much of Patton's story from the point of view of Omar Bradley (and is indeed based in part on Bradley's memoir). Bradley hated Patton and this comes through loud and clear in the picture. From Wikipedia: "In a review of the film, Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, who knew both Patton and Bradley, stated, 'The Bradley name gets heavy billing on a picture of [a] comrade that, while not caricature, is the likeness of a....glory-seeking buffoon.'" 2. Re "'Patton' is a whitewash written by a former member of Patton's staff" - this apparently is a reference to Frank McCarthy who produced the film. In terms of writing, many scripts for "Patton" were in existence in the 1960s when the studio asked Francis Ford Coppola to write a version. This was the version eventually used although Edmund North received co-writing credit. Perhaps North served on Patton's staff; I can find zero evidence of this through a perusal of several obits of the man. 3. The film makes quite clear that de-Nazification was not a Patton priority. 4. He was, sadly, anti-Semitic. 5. Re he was a "nut alright" - I myself don't feel qualified to say. I think a man of Patton's historical importance deserves some caution when it comes to remarks like that; I would be interested in learning the specific source for the remark and of course the definition of "nut" (beyond the anti-Semitism, which perhaps is enough). Patton was certainly unbalanced at times. Perhaps some of this was due to the several head injuries he suffered; perhaps some of it was an act (he was a consummate actor, feeling that he needed to inspire awe, fear, etc.). I would say (a) genius is often unbalanced, ruthless, overly aggressive, ego-driven, and flat-out nasty, and (b) [just as an opinion] every once in a while a country needs a genius in the battlefield. 6. He has a camera strapped to him in his first scene of the film, in North Africa, some months before he got anywhere near Europe. Dunno if it's a Leica. 7. The best recent analysis of the respective performances in World War II of Patton, Bradley, and Ike by a professional military historian can be found in "The Soul of Battle" by Victor Davis Hanson, who basically rips Bradley and Ike new ones for their shocking timidity and praises Patton to the skies. Among other things, Hanson notes that if Patton's genius had been given free rein, a great many Jews might have been saved from the gas chambers (the Nazis stepped-up the ferocity of their maniacal genocide in 1944-45) and Eastern Europe might have been saved from two generations of Stalinist murder and soul-killing oppression.

....

A while back, I picked up a picture book by Michael Green, titled:

Patton's tank drive - D-day to Victory

One prominent 3/4 length at-work portrait had a long description

about his famous .45 Frontier revolvers and listed one of his famous

quotes about them, but what I noticed, was around his neck. It looks

A while back, I picked up a picture book by Michael Green, titled:

Patton's tank drive - D-day to Victory

One prominent 3/4 length at-work portrait had a long description

about his famous .45 Frontier revolvers and listed one of his famous

quotes about them, but what I noticed, was around his neck. It looks

like Leica in a leather half-case with a collapsible lens.

About 7-8 photos in the book show him in the field and he has the

camera at the ready in most of them, with the case open and no cap.

Sorry - no scanner here to share with.

 

 

A good reference on Patton and his cameras (and Patton in WWII for that matter) is:

 

"Patton's Photographs - War As He Saw It" by Kevin MHymel ; Potomac Books 2006, ISBN 1-57488-871-4 or 1-57488-872-2

 

The book cover has the photograph of Patton with his revolver and wearing a black Leica III (or IIIa) with an f2/50mm Summar.

Patton's famous pistols are on display at the museum in Ft. Knox, KY. One is a 4-5/8" Colt .45 Single-Action Army (Peacemaker) and the other is a 3.5" Smith & Wesson "Pre" Magnum (.357), which Patton described as his "Killing Gun." The grips are indeed ivory. On social occasions, Patton carried a small, .380 ACP Colt pistol. The holsters he used were made to his specification by the predecessor of El Paso Leather, and the same models are still available. The 3.5" S&W was adopted by the FBI (among other agencies), and was standard issue from 1936 until the 1980s, eventually becoming the model 27.

The vast majority of "Patton's Nazis" were faceless bureaucrats who kept government services running. That doesn't excuse their complicity, whether active or tacit, but we sent astronauts to the moon on a program supervised by Werner von Braun, who was not only a high-ranking party member, but used slave labor to make and assemble the "Vengeance" rockets used to bombard Great Britain. The enemy of our enemy (e.g., post war Soviet Union) is often treated as our friend. Therein lies redemption.

A few more historical errors to correct

There's a book available about Patton's photography:

https://www.amazon.com/Pattons-Photographs-War-He-Saw/dp/1574888722/ref=pd_lutyp_simh_2_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1574888722&pd_rd_r=XWY8PVNWRM19QV34GW6V&pd_rd_w=UiCHr&pd_rd_wg=3TqlL&psc=1&refRID=XWY8PVNWRM19QV34GW6V

1. Re "Patton" is a "whitewash" - the film tells much of Patton's story from the point of view of Omar Bradley (and is indeed based in part on Bradley's memoir). Bradley hated Patton and this comes through loud and clear in the picture. From Wikipedia: "In a review of the film, Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, who knew both Patton and Bradley, stated, 'The Bradley name gets heavy billing on a picture of [a] comrade that, while not caricature, is the likeness of a....glory-seeking buffoon.'"

-----Yet the movie succeeds in making an anti-hero out of Patton, and depicts Bradley as partially motivated by politics.

"The film makes quite clear that de-Nazification was not a Patton priority."

-----Correct. He chose to leave Nazis in positions of public service so the electrical grids and railroads would function.

4. He was, sadly, anti-Semitic.

------Unfortunately true, but not presented in the film. However such views were consistent with his background and peer group. His antisematism did not prevent him from being visible and emotionally shaken when visiting concentration camps. He did order the residents of nearby German towns to come into the camps to see what they long ignored.

"5. Re he was a "nut alright" - I myself don't feel qualified to say. I think a man of Patton's historical importance deserves some caution when it comes to remarks like that; I would be interested in learning the specific source for the remark and of course the definition of "nut" (beyond the anti-Semitism, which perhaps is enough). Patton was certainly unbalanced at times. Perhaps some of this was due to the several head injuries he suffered; perhaps some of it was an act (he was a consummate actor, feeling that he needed to inspire awe, fear, etc.). I would say (a) genius is often unbalanced, ruthless, overly aggressive, ego-driven, and flat-out nasty, and (b) [just as an opinion] every once in a while a country needs a genius in the battlefield."

-----Megalomaniac and Pathological......but a nutcase ? IDK.

" 7. The best recent analysis of the respective performances in World War II of Patton, Bradley, and Ike by a professional military historian can be found in "The Soul of Battle" by Victor Davis Hanson, who basically rips Bradley and Ike new ones for their shocking timidity and praises Patton to the skies. Among other things, Hanson notes that if Patton's genius had been given free rein, a great many Jews might have been saved from the gas chambers (the Nazis stepped-up the ferocity of their maniacal genocide in 1944-45) and Eastern Europe might have been saved from two generations of Stalinist murder and soul-killing oppression."

------Politics and logistics dictated that the Allies halt their advance in late summer early fall of 1944. From D-Day until about the end of Sept, the Germans were in full retreat and had broken ranks in their frenzied attempt to get back to Germany. The D-Day troops were advancing from the beach heads, and Patton was advancing through the French Heartland. In both cases, most supplies were moved by truck convoy from Normandy Beaches- along routes several hundred miles long by the end of August. On the political side, Ike was trying to hold together a coalition of disparate interests. The Brits wanted revenge for Dunkirk- thus Montgomery with the backing of the crown and Churchill wanted to be the first into Berlin. The French wanted revenge for the Vichy regime and reward for the gallantry of the resistance. The Russians wanted to be sure they received their pieces of the pie, and wanted to beat the west into Berlin. Patton just wanted to win. Patton understood that German disarray created an opportunity to drive through their broken ranks and reach Berlin by December. He also understood the opportunity was fleeting, and given time the German retreat would collapse upon itself, allowing the Germans time to regroup, resupply, and counterattack. By October 1944 the Germans were able to defeat the allies at Arnheim in Holland. By December 1944 they were able to launch a formidable counterattack. After the war, investigations into German military activities showed Patton was correct. The Germans could have been defeated 6 months early, but the Allied halt (due to politics and logistics) allowed the Germans enough time to regain initiative. Ike decided to with hold gasoline and supplies from Patton to satisfy the other members of the coalition. At that time, the US could not afford to be "unilateral".

-----Warriors are not suited for civilian life, and vice versa.

That's very interesting, Ross. It is important to hold a coalition together at such a time and Patton having stepped on so many toes was seen by many as a dangerous radical. I think I learned at school that many unsavoury agreements regarding how the war should end were made at Yalta, and I guess that wouldn't have happened if Patton had ripped up the turf and got to Berlin earlier.

I think the Russians were after a fair slice of revenge, as well as real estate.

"The Brits wanted revenge for Dunkirk- thus Montgomery with the backing of the crown and Churchill wanted to be the first into Berlin."

That is a very naive opinion. The British had more serious concerns than revenge for Dunkirk. I have never ever heard any of that generation express such a view. To suggest that Montgomery needed 'the backing of the crown' is ridiculous. King George was a constitutional monarch who did an immense amount for morale but was not responsible for the conduct of the war. Churchill was well aware of the danger of the Soviet Union swallowing as much of Europe as they could. It is a pity that his influence was waning at that time.

Stuart

Copyrighted Photo of Patton with Leica, here:

http://c7.alamy.com/comp/CWAG7W/general-george-patton-1885-1945-sicily-1943-CWAG7W.jpg

I wonder if they know that the image is reversed, probably scanned the negative upside down.

Wind knob and shutter speed should be on the right not left side of camera.

Copyrighted Photo of Patton with Leica, here:

 

http://c7.alamy.com/comp/CWAG7W/general-george-patton-1885-1945-sicily-1943-CWAG7W.jpg

I am glad you explained that the picture of Patton was printed arse about face. I had noticed that his shirt had the buttons on the wrong side, that is to say the women's side. The photo could have started rumours distressing to a man as butch as Patton.

Stuart

I am glad you explained that the picture of Patton was printed arse about face. I had noticed that his shirt had the buttons on the wrong side, that is to say the women's side. The photo could have started rumours distressing to a man as butch as Patton.

Left/Right reversal was often done by the editor so that the principal faced toward the center. The rifle bolt is also on the left side.

The M1 Garand rifle was in short supply throughout the war. Many enlisted men and most officers were issued an M1a Carbine instead, with an effective range far less than the 600 yards of the Grand. The Mauser 98 was just as hard-hitting as the Garand, but slower to operate. There were plenty of Mausers though, free for the picking.