ONE
From Kid to Killer
GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON JR. lost his life on 21 December 1945 as a legend, praised in retrospect as an armored commander even by a defeated enemy. Pattonâs daring and leadership had few equals among the Allied warlords, and some of his triumphs were magnificent. He earned his place in military history and popular lore. But was he really, as one of his most knowledgeable biographers, Martin Blumenson, suggested, a âhero even to professional German officers who respected him as the adversary they most feared in battle?â1 Was it true, as Pattonâs World War II G-2, Col. Oscar Koch, asserted, that âwhere Patton was and what he was doing was of constant interest to the enemy high command?â2 What did his mortal enemies really make of Patton and his skills as a combat commander?
How might an enemy come to know of and judge Patton as a military adversary? A man might meet him personally on the battlefield, close enough to look him in the eyes and see the sweat on his brow. Such meetings are rare in modern warfare, yet one antagonist briefly knew Patton in that way. Patton believed fervently in leading in combat from the front, and so an enemy might not see him as an individual on a faceless battlefield, yet know his hand from the tactical and moral performance of men under his command. To the extent that Patton could shape a plan executed by his subordinates, an enemy would learn his ways through the daring and conception of his schemes.
Asked about his views of American commanders after the war, Hitlerâs operations chief, Generaloberst Alfred Jodl, commented, âIt is difficult, except through some very unusual stroke, to make oneself well known to the opponent.â He praised Lt. Gen. Omar Bradleyâs strategic planning and execution of the breakout from Normandy and First Armyâs bold seizure of the Remagen bridge. He doubtless knew who Gen. Dwight David âIkeâ Eisenhower was, but Patton appeared to be the only other American general he could identify.3
Other, less direct considerations might come into play. The quality of soldiers and formations trained by Patton, compared with the quality of those shaped by other American officers of equivalent station, could say much. So, too, would the combat-leadership merits of the officers selected by Patton to be his chief subordinates. Pattonâs skill at extracting the best from his most competent subordinates and overcoming the weaknesses of those who needed corrective guidance would be particularly well understood by German opponents, because their principle of Auftragstaktik was nearly identical to Pattonâs philosophy of giving mission-type orders to subordinates. Both relied on the individual initiative of subordinates, on those subordinatesâ independent decision making, and on thinking leaders responding to their own tactical situations.4 Patton had become familiar with German mission-type orders in 1935, when he read Adolf von Schellâs Battle Leadership, though it was one part of the text where he made no marginal notes.5 Patton believed, âa general should command one echelon down and know the position of units two echelons down.â6 By his own standard, an enemy could judge him by how he handled his immediate subordinate commanders.
Many soldiers who had experienced the fickle fortunes of war might consider Pattonâs luckâanathema, perhaps, to modern historians, but understood to be a decisive force in war by the likes of the ancient Romans and Napoleon Bonaparte (and, as we shall see, Eisenhower). In all these things, an enemy could consider whether Patton won or lost under odds that greatly favored or disfavored him, whether his battles were fierce crucibles of the military art or tests that any moderately competent commander could face and overcome.
We will examine the formative experiences of Pattonâs enemies to understand the context in which they interpreted his performance, in addition to the battle lessons and skills they brought to their fights against him. They almost invariably knew more of actual war than Patton did. Some of them were his full equals or better in the art of mobile warfare.
THE ENEMYâS ENEMY
This is not a biography of Patton, but no work about him can succeed without some picture of the man. Though it may seem odd, let us jump ahead to Pattonâs future to gain a sense of what he became as a man and military leader, and then letâs return to a more chronological tour through his personal history, wherein his enemies appeared, one war after another.
Master of Battle, If Not Always Himself
Colonel Robert Allen, who served on Pattonâs staff at Third Army at the height of the generalâs military puissance and was able to observe his commander closely in good times and bad, concluded that to understand Patton, one had to grasp two primary characteristics: âHis all-inclusive absorption in war coupled with his natural combativeness.â
Outstanding effectiveness in battle requires steel-hard ruthlessness and aggressiveness. Patton had these qualities in full measure.... A West Point classmate once summed up Patton as âpurebred gamecock with brains....â
He did not become a soldier by accident or to earn a livelihood. He was five years old when he informed his parents he intended to become âa great general.â When he learned to read, the first book he bought was a history of decisive battles. In school he was always organizing sham battles. On his honeymoon in France, he took his young bride to historic battlefields and fortresses....
Waging war was Pattonâs passion and avocation. All his life he consciously and purposely molded and trained himself to fight. Nothing else really mattered to him.7
Martin Blumenson, biographer and the organizer of Pattonâs papers, said of his personal character:
He was, in fact, a complex, paradoxical, and many-faceted figure.
He was unpredictable, capricious, at the same time dependable, loyal. He was brutal yet sensitive. He was gregarious and a loner. Enthusiastic and buoyant, he suffered from inner anguish. He displayed... an astonishing mixture of arrogance and humility.
He was driven by ambition, tortured by self-doubt....
During his early years, even though he sought to epitomize violence, force, and drive, he was relatively stable, well-balanced, and usually mild-mannered. He played and worked hard, he was outspoken and could be blunt, but he tried to live by the code of the gentleman, the creed of the knight. . . .
Part of the transformation was cultivated, self-willed. He undertook consciously to alter his image.... [H]e cultivated the ferocious face because he was probably concerned and worried about his voice, which was high-pitched, almost like a womanâs, and because he believed that only he-men inspired troops to fight.8
Blumenson theorized that a head injury from a horseâs kick had resulted in a subdural hematoma, which created a physiological predisposition to extreme mood swings.9
The result was a leader whom some adored and some loathed, at times simultaneously. General Omar Bradley, who served as Pattonâs subordinate and superior, recalled, â[W]hile he was profane, he was also reverent. And while he strutted imperiously as a commander, he knelt humbly before his God.... Patton believed that profanity was the most convincing medium of communication with his troops. But while some chuckled delightedly over the famed expletives he employed with startling originality, the majority, it seemed to me, were more often shocked and offended.... Patton chose to drive his subordinates by bombast and by threats. Those mannerisms achieved spectacular results.â10
Blumenson argued that Pattonâs âbattle proficiency flowed from his character and personality. Much of his martial ability was innate....â11
A sketch of Pattonâs military qualities is best created by the prominent historians who have deeply considered his writings and deeds. Among the first was Douglass Southall Freeman, who in 1947 observed, âHe was a man to win, to intrigue, and sometimes to enrage his fellow-commanders. Always he fulfilled the Napoleonic mandate of supplying by picturesque conduct the causerie de bivouac that makes soldiers swear at their commander and then swear by him. In the larger qualities of leadership, Pattonâs daring reminds one of âStonewallâ Jackson. His determination to push straight to the Rhine of course recalls Shermanâs march to the sea. Patton was cast in the mold of great American soldiers....â12
Carlo DâEste concluded, âAs a tactician, Patton ranged from superb to average in situations beyond his control. However, what separated him from his peers and cemented his reputation was his daring, freewheeling approach to modern warfare. His grasp of the capabilities of the weapons and equipment at his disposal was unexcelled.â13
Blumenson summarized, âHis exploits, there is no doubt, shortened the conflict. By his ardor and know-how, his seemingly reckless activity transformed campaigns, turning static, casualty-ridden warfare into exciting, mobile operations virtually free of losses. Many thought he moved instantaneously, on the spur of the moment without deliberation. He preferred to be so regarded. In reality, he used his staff to study the options open to him, discussed with them the probable results beforehandâall this in privateâthen acted as though the decision was off-the-cuff.... No one dominated the field of battle like Patton.â14
The Making of the Warrior
Patton was born in San Gabriel, California, on 11 November 1885, an auspicious date for a future soldier who would see his first real combat in the Great War. Pattonâs mother, Ruth Wilson, was the wealthy daughter of one of southern Californiaâs founding fathers. His father, George Smith Patton II, was a Virginian and an alumnus of the Virginia Military Institute (as was his grandfather, a Confederate colonel killed in action) who had made a comfortable life for himself in California as a lawyer and politician. Pattonâs step-grandfather, (Confederate) Col. George Smith (known to Patton as Papa), and a family friend, the great Confederate raider Col. John Singleton Mosby, imbued in the young Patton a worship of his Southern ancestors and fascination with military matters. His boyhood readings were the classics, the Bible, and military history. His games were of war, and he inscribed one toy sword with âLt. Gen. G. S. Patton.â As early as grammar school, his papers showed a grasp of tactics, troop concentration, and maneuvering. He became a fearless young horseman.
Suffering from dyslexia, which made academics exceptionally challenging, Patton enrolled in the Virginia Military Institute in 1903, which he hoped would be merely preparation for the U.S. Military Academy in West Point. His determined labors and lobbying by his father paid off, and in 1904 Patton was accepted into the cadet corps. Academics remained a challenge, and Patton had to repeat his plebe year. He excelled at the details of military life, however, and rose to become cadet adjutant. In 1909, Patton graduated 46th out of 103 in his class and received a commission as a second lieutenant in the cavalry. His classmates included William Simpson and Jacob Devers, and Courtney Hodges had dropped out of the class. These four men would form the majority of the top-level American ground-force chieftains in the European theater in World War II.
Patton reported to the 15th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Sheridan, Illinois. It was dull garrison duty, but Patton used his spare time to further his study of the military arts and to write the first of a years-long string of professional journal articles.
In 1910, Patton married Beatrice Ayer, a beautiful, smart, and musically talented debutante from an extremely wealthy Boston family. In 1911, the couple was blessed with the first of three children, a daughter named Beatrice. That year, Patton arranged a transfer to the 15th Cavalryâs detachment quartered at Fort Myer, Virginia, which plugged him into the Washington social scene. The doors that opened for him there influenced the course of his professional career, starting with a chance horse-riding encounter with Secretary of War Henry Stimson that later blossomed into a lasting relationship.
Patton was a gifted polo player, and he built a competitive personal stable. In 1912, he participated in the Olympic Games in Stockholm, Sweden, where he placed fifth in the military pentathlon. The following year, Patton attended the French cavalry school in Saumur for lessons in swordsmanship. On his return, he became the armyâs first master of the sword and designed the M-1913 saber.
Patton graduated from the advanced course at the Cavalry School in Fort Riley, Kansas, in 1914. When war broke out in Europe in August, Patton sought permission to serve with the French cavalry as an observer, but was turned down by the U.S. War Department.
The 15th Cavalry shipped to the Philippines in 1915, and Patton used his influence in Washington to get an assignment with the 8th Cavalry, just returning from the islands, at Fort Bliss, Texas, near the Mexican border. There he came under the authority of Brig. Gen. John Pershing, who commanded the 8th Cavalry Brigade. Mexico was in the throes of civil conflict, and the self-styled revolutionary leader Francisco âPanchoâ Villa was raiding American-owned properties on the Mexican side of the border. On 9 March, Villaâs troops raided the town of Columbus, Texas, where they killed ten civilians and eight soldiers. Pershing received orders to mount an immediate punitive expedition into Mexico, and when Patton learned that his regiment would not accompany the expedition, he pulled every string he couldâeven appearing unannounced at Pershingâs doorstepâto get assigned to Pershingâs staff. As he did in so many thing...