I recently rewatched the bio-pic 'Patton' staring George C. Scott. The bombastic, comic-tragic, larger than life character in the movie was all I knew of Patton. I was intrigued and surprised to learn that Omar Bradly served as a consultant on the movie and that he hated Patton. I wanted to go get a deeper and, hopefully, unbiased, picture of Patton.
This weighty tome is reputed to be the authoritative biography of Patton. I am not familiar with the range of Patton biographies that are available, so can't evaluate that reputation from a comparative perspective. However, I can say that book is extremely well researched and thorough. Perhaps most importantly, the biographer's position on and feelings about Patton are largely hidden and Patton's life, influence and importance are revealed through Patton's writings and the words of his contemporaries.
Comparing the book to the movie, one finds that there is one, major, glaring error in the latter. The movie significantly plays up the rivalry between Patton and Montgomery during the Sicily campaign. It suggests that Patton ignored orders and charged off on an unapproved thrust to capture Palermo and Messina. It is implied that Patton launched these attacks out of pure vanity and that in doing so he needlessly endangered and squandered the lives of his men. Patton's thrust, the Sicily campaign, the interaction of Patton and Montgomery as the senior allied tactical commanders, and of Alexander as the campaign's senior Allied commander are much more complicated than that. It seems accurate to say that Patton's ego sometimes vied with his extraordinary tactical and command expertise. It may also be true that his ego was among the motivating factors in his actions in Sicily. But, it does not appear that he ignored or exceeded his orders, or that his actions had a significantly negative impact on Montgomery's hard slog to Messina. This seems a significant failing of the movie and one wonders how much Omar Bradly might be responsible for the movie's interpretation.
In other respects, the movie is accurate, but the medium is fatally ill-suited to telling Patton's story. Patton is an extraordinarily complex subject. Publicly, the man was bellicose and obscene. His detractors portrayed him as a mad popinjay, unconcerned with the lives of his soldiers, an American fascist, and an average tactical commander. Yet, many of his soldiers took pride in him and their accomplishments while serving under his commend and the senior military leadership, Eisenhower and Marshall worked to protect him from his own excesses to keep him in command on the battlefield. His enemies considered him the most dangerous allied general in the theater. His staff, who had the opportunity to observe him most intimately, considered is public persona a show to set a high standard and motivate the troops and suggest that out of the public eye, Patton was a much deeper and more feeling man than people understand. They maintain that the popular picture of him and the movie portrayal fail to capture his true complexity and genius. For a man with all of these contradictions, who from the age of 7 considered himself to be destined to be a great general, who served in both world wards and played a key role in the development of the first U.S. armored command during WWI, the movie should have been at least 3 times as long to even begin to tell his story.
While I was working through this book, I set it aside for a few weeks to read Thomas Ricks' new book, The Generals. Reading these two books together was an extremely rewarding exercise. In his book, Ricks argues that since the end of WWII there have been significant failings in US Army leadership and an almost criminal lack of accountability for those failings. Ricks argues that the US Army no longer trains or tolerates leaders to lead aggressively, and who take calculated risks, which may sometimes lead to failure, but whose success can make critical tactical and strategic differences. Ricks makes the argument that During WWII, George Marshall, recognized and promoted key Army leaders, gave them opportunities to be successful, but relieved them if they failed to deliver. Ricks argues that Marshall's understanding of the skills he needed in his commanders, his ability to recognize and promote individuals with those skills was unparalleled.
In his book, Ricks highlights the fact that one of the skills Marshall prized most was an ability to cooperate both with other US commanders and with Allied commanders from other nations. Ricks recognizes that this focus on cooperation was at odds with the blunt and aggressive personalities of commanders like Patton and Terry Allen, who led the 1st infantry division in N. Africa and Sicily before being relieved by Eisenhower and then subsequently sent back into the theater by Marshall.
It is very interesting to explore Patton's career through the binary lens of cooperation vs aggressiveness.
Reading about how Patton's big mouth and stupid comments rain headlong into civilian political sensibilities and into the political sensibilities of his military superiors, and resulted in his relief from multiple commands and, most likely, from ground command of the initial Overlord invasion, then about his successes on the battlefield makes one wonder if we need to fundamentally examine whether we want military leaders who can give a press briefing or military leaders who win wars. And reading of Eisenhower and Bradley's opinions and treatment of Patton forces one to question whether it was Marshall's focus on cooperation that is at the heart of the lack of aggressiveness and accountability that Ricks' as critical failings of today's military.
As a military leader, Patton is not without his faults. He is not an infallible tactician, nor an omniscient commander of men. However, one could make the case that he was the most talented and able Allied Army commander. It is interesting to speculate about the greater impact he might have had if he'd been given the chance.
Many have said that Patton was crazy. In fact, D'Este explores the question of whether or not Patton took too many falls from his horse and whether or not that might have resulted in a mental condition. It is certainly possible that Patton was crazy and that his excesses were the result of mental incapacity. However, it must also be noted, that there are many people who spend so much time and are so focused on becoming experts in their field that they loose the ability to focus or understand anything outside of their narrow field of vision. For example, there is the classic example of the hapless economist who can't balance his own checkbook. It may simply be that having worked so long and hard at being a soldier, Patton tuned out everything else.
Would I want a Patton as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? No. I wouldn't even want him as a senior theater commander, his excesses are unpredictable and need to be checked. But if I was going to send one of my sons to war, I would feel better about our chances of victory and their chances to return home if they served under Patton.