Printable View
Hey guys,
I posted this question on a test for extra credit, and wanted to hear your responses on it.
"Given Patton's military competency and the rivalry between he and the British commander Montgomery, how do you think the Battle for Italy would have been different if Patton hadn't slapped a soldier and been removed from the theatre?"
Just spitballing some scenarios...
Salerno
Anzio
Monte Cassino
Decision to liberate Rome Vs German cutoff
Your thoughts? I'm not Mark Clark's biggest fan.
Hey Rami --
Not really sure what you're looking for here... BUT, it was the news reels that amplified the incident between Patton, and the soldier he slapped. Ike was furious at the effect the incident had not only on Patton's popularity but the war effort in general. Had Patton not slapped the soldier, me thinks he would have been allowed to stay with 3rd Army. Omar Bradley was Patton's best friend during his roughest times... and usually found ways to smooth things over between George's persistently outlandish but effective ways to wage war against the Germans, and what Washington thought. Bradley was not hesitant one bit to let his friend George know that despite their friendship, he might not be able to convince Ike to let him stay in command of Allied Forces in Europe, if he (Patton) continued to "shoot off his big mouth". Suffice to say, Ike also knew how effective Patton was as a commanding officer and his popularity with his subordinates. JMO.
BB686
To paraphrase Sam Elliott in the film We were Soldiers Once, "Montgomery was a pussy, Patton wasn't."
Patton was a soldier, tactician and commander intent on destroying the enemy wherever he was by whatever means was available. He had no "public" to appease. Monty was a pompous ,extra cautious, ***. Who knows where the war in Italy would have gone. It was certainly not the terrain for tank warfare though.
Highpockets,
From a tactical and agressiveness perspective, I see a lot in common between Patton and Stonewall Jackson.
Kurt,
Sam Elliot isn't who is known for mincing words. I love his straightforwardness. I still love his portrayal of Buford from Gettysburg.
The comparison of Patton and Montgomery has been the ongoing controversey for awhile in certain historical circles. Sort of like comparing Custer and Crazy Horse. One was a evaluater of his opponents leaders to know their tendencies and then strike and exploit the leaders weaknesses and the other believed in classic military doctrine of the day.
Pattons style of warfare was to evaluate the enemy, especially their commanders and then hit as hard as he could.The old "Know your enemy" axiom. Wherever any crack showed he would exploit to the max. Once a opponent tried to fallback to re-group Patton believed in not giving them the chance irregardless of the condition of his position. He believed in hit, hit again, and then just keep hitting irregardless of political BS from the REMF's. Never, ever let the enemy re-group and stiffen. The German High Command feared him for this. They would never get a chance to consolidate whenever a crack showed. Many of his successses were stopped by political chicanery much to the relief of the German High command.
Montgomery, on the other hand, always had his ear tuned to how the action would play politically. The Germans knew that he had the tendency to dither endlessly and was known not to exploit some successes. He would strike, evaluate the action, test the political winds, then maybe hit again. He believed in classic set-piece battles. The only thing that saved his command position at times were his champions back at London.
Anzio was a unmitigated disaster that almost cost the whole Italian campaign. Clark and his command were allegedly notified that it was a bad landing spot as some German concentrations were in the area. They totally ignored the warnings and landed. Low and behold they encountered some of the elite German SS Panzer formations from the Eastern Front that were being refitted and rested after extended action on that Front. These were battle tested troops who knew well how to engage a enemy and did not relent easily.
Casino turned into a slugfest when a decision was made to bomb the abbey. German records examined after the war showed that the abbey was NOT a position before the bombing. It was after when it was rubble did the German para's take up positions.
According to some military historians one of the main problems of the WW2 "allies" were the political in-fights between the "Allies". Many had political, and military, "leaders" who already had their eyes on post-war political power and their "legacy" in history.
All this being said Patton did give a rats patooey about after the war where-as Clark seemed to be about what politicians thought of him and giving him higher command and what would his status be after the war.
Definitely no love lost between Patton and Montie. The above comparisons between the two pretty much hit the nail on the head. Patton was not afraid to lead his men into battle... the key word here is "LEAD". He was a true "Soldiers General", but you had to earn his respect. As I stated before, had he just walked away from the shell shocked soldier in the hospital tent, rather than slapping him, he may have been allowed to keep his command at the time. The effect of seeing a General kiss another wounded soldier on the forehead and give him the Silver Star, may have had just as much a profound effect on the shell shocked solder's life, as "slapping" him to the ground in front of the rest of his fellow warriors did. JMO.
BB686
Fibber,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fibber
I have to take exception here. Saying that Anzio was an unmitigated disaster has to be qualified. The landings themselves were uncontested, and there were no German units of strength in the area that could be mobilized for at least twenty-four to thirty-six hours. The gates to at least make a strong push on Rome were wide open. John "McClellan" Lucas, commander of VI Corps, chose to have his Richmond / Antietam moment at this crucial juncture, and doing nothing is what allowed German units to surround the Anzio beachhead.
This is one of the precise moments where I think Patton could have measurably shortened the Italian campaign. He would very likely have pushed to turn the Gothic Line and scare the crap out of the Wehrmacht.
I will try to refind the reference to what I posted about Anzio and maybe we are having a bit of confusion here that needs clarification. It is agreed agreed that the initial landings were unopposed as unlike Normandy. But, as I stated in the last sentence of my post, the tendency of Clark and what happened after the landing is what caused the potential for disaster.
BTW: I once went swimming in the area. The rip-tides in that area are horrendous, and I mean REALLY horrendous!! and I was told that at certain times of the year they were always like that. Could be I was being lied to but they were bad.
Fibber,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fibber
Not a problem. After the landing, not advancing inland really set the stage for disaster at Anzio. That being said, Anzio wasn't quite as bad as Salerno, that landing came withing a good sneeze of failure. Hats off to the US Navy and her big guns for averting disaster there. :very_drunk: If the area surrounding Anzio had hills like Salerno did, woe betide the troops who would have been trapped in the Anzio pocket.
Here is a Azio veteran site with a running description of the battle named "Operation Shingle". Almost made some get the "shingles".
http://anziobeachheadveterans.com/an...ration-shingle
Here is another;
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...les/anzio.aspx
This last one addresses some of your original question.
Here is another site that addresses Clarks eye toward politics; (long but waaaaaaaaay down the essay it is addressed)
http://www.historynet.com/world-war-...-operation.htm
I don't think anyone has ever accused Patton of humility.Quote:
Originally Posted by highpockets
As for Monty's cautiousness, I don't think many in the US keep in mind how much of a burden the UK and the Russians bore for so long. I think he is overrated but as far as cautiousness goes I am not sure that is a fair comparison.
I think if you look at Patton in Sicily you would get an idea of how the push up through mountainous terrain would have gone. An aggressive style against very defensible terrain, I think his "his guts, our blood" reputation would have been magnified many times over. I don't know how long that would have been put up with. I don't think there was any danger of that ever happening though. Patton was like MacArthur, he was a made man before the war, he wasn't going to be allowed to fail too badly, he would be moved to a situation that suited his style (and ego) Patton was not made commander of the 3rd Army as punishment for slapping soldiers, that decision was made before that incident.
Fibber,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fibber
Yet another chink in the armor of Mark Clark, the MacArthur of the Italian Theatre.
Patton vs Monty at the command of the Italian campaign...a no-brainer rout. Patton had no respect for static fortifications or lines. He was a pure 'hit and pursue', 'shoot and move', 'seek and destroy' tactician. With regards to the Gothic line, he might well have taken the same approach as the Allies in the Pacific in dealing with Fortress Rabaul with a bypassing maneuver that isolated the strongpoint, cut it off from reinforcement and resupply and left it to wither and die. The Gothic line might have quickly become the Gothic "pocket", a precursor to the latter Battle of the Falaise Pocket, squeezed into oblivion AFTER a two-pronged flanking "Hail Mary" run around it which took the Allies through the Alps all the way to Germany, politics permitting of course. The Wehrmacht had a bad track record in two-front scenarios and scenarios that left them surrounded. This is a weakness that Patton would have exploited with maximum effort. This is where he might have pressed command for dropping airborne troops into the best suited areas of northern Italy and then quickly moving them into positions that sealed the backdoor while the main forces pressed the flanks and the southern front.
But tactics aside, just having an "uncut" Patton (without the humiliation of the slapping incident) and Monty in theater throughout the campaign would have been quite the media circus, even giving the Germans some amusement along with the defeat. :adoration:
Hey All,
I've always seen Patton as a WWII Custer (whose luck ran out as you well know). Patton's luck would have run out had he lead an army against Russia and could have at Normandy had he been counter attacked. I see NO resemblance to T J Jackson or Bedford Forrest at best maybe some resemblance to J E B Stuart. I don't know much about Mark Clark. One thing I do know - my grand mother on my mom's side maiden name was Kuhl as was the last name of the soldier he slapped. Always wondered but never looked into it.
Any of you ever settle it by playing BII from SSG? I play TAO in BIN from them time to time and I hear the TAO version in BII is better than in BIN. I think I'll buy BII.
-Ed-
'Stonewall' Jackson would be a good comparrison to Patton. Although maybe not completly. Now Custer was a fool. He should never have been given command of the 7th. Though without his death the Souix may not have been beaten as fast. It created an 'Alamo' or 'Remember the Maine' effect.
Rami,
That would be a good extra credit question.
As a side note: The reporter who broke the news of Patton slapping the soldier, to some extent, set the stage for Vietnam. In the effect that the news must be told regardless of the cost. There comes a point in time that the public doesn't need to know everything. the term "Loose lips sink ships" comes to mind. Well one over zelious reporter can lose a war. In hind site the reporter should have been shot for treason as he cost the allies hundreds of extra lives.
Thats just my thoughs.
I somehow missed this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rami
I agree fully with you, Rami. Had Patton remained at his command post here, the Italian campaign would have ended in the first half of 1944. Perhaps even before D-Day in Normandy.
This in turn would have saved thousands of civilian lives, because the SS would have not had the time to fight the partisans and do the reprisal massacres they carried out. Had Roma been seized by the Allies when the opportunity was there, the killing of 300+ people at the Fosse Ardeatine stone quarry out of Roma would have not taken place. Neither the other massacres, which took place about a year later in the Appennini mountains not too far from where I live, at S. Anna di Stazzema first and Marzabotto near Bologna later, would have happened.
There would have not been the necessity of the 1944 tactical air offensive, designed to burn the ground behind retreating Whermacht troops, which costed huge devastations and again many civilian casualties.
Ultimately, an earlier end of the Italian campaign would have changed the entire course of WWII and later history in Europe. More troops and resources would have been freed for the D-Day invasion, which would have resulted in an earlier breakup of the German defensive perimetre around the Normandy beach head, an earlier liberation of France and an earlier crossing of the Rhine and invasion of the German homeland.
War would have ended by 1944 year-end, as many Allied commanders hoped.
Moreover, the Allies would have conquered Berlin, instead of the Russians, with obvious consequences on the Cold War which plagued Europe and the rest of the world for the next four decades, eating up huge resources for both US and the Soviet Union. Think of all the consequences on the post-WWII "local conflicts", Korea, Vietnam first and foremost, Israel vs. the Arabs, Southern American and African coup d'etats and guerrilla conflicts, all caused and supported by the opposing interests of the two super-powers? Probably they would have never taken place. I doubt even the surfacing of Muslim fundamentalism and Sept. 11th, 2001, direct or indirect consequences of the Soviets "exporting the people's revolution", trying to undermine Western powers through support of anyone who was willing to take arms against America and her Allies.
Had not Patton slapped that soldier, or even if the episode would have been ignored by the Allied HQ, letting Patton carrying on his job in Italy, modern post-WWII history would have been deeply different. Unfortunately, history is not written by the "what ifs".
Thank you all for this extremely interesting topic and Rami for bringing it up!
KH :ernaehrung004: