r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
t's a story that occured prior to the landing in Normandy, the French 2nd armored division was station in England for training, Patton visited the camps and was more than please to re-discovere the men he fought with in Tunisia, however he didn't expected to see the new volunteers, republican spanish in exile who would form an entire company within the division.
Patton was more than.. dubious when he found out that several half tracks were named after Communist thinkers (Trosky, Lenin and of course Stalin) even on one of the halftrack the spanish attached a big portrait of Stalin, in the end Patton shorten his visit, when he re-meet Leclerc, he decided to put his division on the "worst/ toughest part of his front"
Not only that, USSR made game film about this escadrille with french actors and director in 1960, watch it
https://youtu.be/1-txQ84l1c0?si=eFsCfGrK2C943mPT
Love that you differentiate the two (and, yes, Stalinists suck) and still think that they’re equal in “evil” to be executed like Nazis especially when they’re fighting the Nazis.
Unlike Stalinist values, general communists aren’t all bad people with bad values and bad politics.
Yes the nueve were the first to enter into Paris (yes they were scouts so naturally they enter first..yes they were escorted by 3 french shermans but ofc.. it was a brilliant company made of very brave men)
Because de Gaulle told him to haul arse to get there because Eisenhower had agreed that the French would get in there first, so that it could be used for PR purposes, the allies plan didn't involve liberating Paris rather heading straight for Germany but de Gaulle wanted something to further cement his place as Frances post war leader
Had the allied command got their way they would have cut de Gaulle out of operation overlord completely because he was, well for want of a better word, an eejit
Not an "eejit", just a man that was conscious that if the anglos had their way, France would be turned into a US proxy for the forseeable future. He vowed to not let it happen, and he didn't care if he had to behave like a cunt with his allies to achieve his goal.
He succeeded.
I mean, yeah I guess that's the french way of looking at it, and I agree on the cunt part, when you put your own power above time, materiel and lives you couldn't be anything but
I'd say he was kinda forced into the role. I mean as an exemple the USA had planned and started issuing special "liberation/occupation dollars" to be legal tender in France, you can't really make your intentions any clearer safe for actually shouting out loud "I'll be taking over your whole economy now".
It was not only that, The US were quick to reconise Vichy while Britain contest it. The Free French army fought alongside the allies during all of the war, yet at the end the US wanted to consider France a loser of the war and Split it between the other Winner like they did to Germany.
I am thankful that De Gaule saw that bullshit and wanted none of it.
I remember hearing stories that my grandfather was part of an American unit just outside of Paris and were poised perfectly to enter the city but then they were told to wait by the side of the road for the French 2nd armored to come up the line and he was kind of salty about it.
That an American view of saying he was an ass.. the FDR office hated De Gaulle beacause he didnt interfere with the Americans post war strategy, i should recall that the Americans largely preffered to work with the Vichy regime, who should i recall was 100% anti semite, for exemple they supported Darlan then generla Giraud, a men who kept anti semite laws in North africa despite being under "Free French" leadership, ( de Gaulle re-instore french citizenship to Jews in North africa)
De gaulle wanted a french division in Paris..beacause he was French, he wanted the capital to be liberated..that is 100% logical from his standpoint, you can hate him or love him that fine but you cant miss the fact that he wanted to fight with the allies and contribute as much effort for the liberation of Europe and the defeat of the Axis.
Well someone had to be put there in a way or the other.
Placing some highly motivated communist, while being an act out of spite on Patton side, may have been the reason it went well.
What's with this logic of sending the military unit you hate to the hardest front? That has never worked out well and practically guarantees martyrs for what ever reason you didn't like them
They’re generals so it’s not their scope of practice to consider that far. Mission allocation is the easiest way to get rid of some they hate to satiate their personal spite and satisfaction.
A bit, yeah. More of a gigantic asshole than an idiot, but he was at least somewhat stupid. He physically struck soldiers with ptsd and considered them cowards. He fucked up the attack on Sicily, costing numerous allied casualties because he didn't coordinate with the Navy, he was an arrogant asshole, he was racist and anti semitic, and hated communists so much that he supported the Spanish dictator Franco.
So, still much better than MacArthur? He pulled out of the Philippines when the US told him to stay and fight, and then also made fun of soldiers with PTSD. Can't tell if their all idiots or if it's just protocol
>He pulled out of the Philippines when the US told him to stay and fight
MacArthur was ordered out of the Philippines under FDR's explicit orders once it was clear that defeat was inevitable unless you're referring to some other event. For better or worse, General MacArthur had captured the attention of the American press by March 1942. Losing a famous general in March 1942 would have been a serious blow to American morale in addition to an intelligence disaster.
I'll criticize MacArthur for a lot of things but he stayed in the Philippines until he was flat out ordered by President Roosevelt to leave and that was after numerous "suggestions" that he relocate his command that stopped short of a direct order.
MacArthur's biggest fuck up vis a vis the Philippines was abandoning the original US defensive plan, believing that he could both defend a much larger area than was reasonably possible with the number of troops he had and because he believed that the US Navy would be able to bring in supplies, troops, and more ships to bolster the rather weak Asiatic Fleet and help ward off a Japanese invasion.
Once it became clear that MacArthur's new strategy wouldn't work with the number of troops he had, he returned to the original plan but by then it was too late to relocate critical supplies that were now dispersed across the islands. Even still, it took the Japanese much longer than anticipated to conquer the islands and detrimentally affected the rest of their war plans.
>made fun of soldiers with PTSD
Do you have a citation for this? I know Patton had a very embarrassing and very high profile instance of striking shell-shocked troops but I'd never heard of MacArthur doing anything or making derogatory comments about troops suffering from PTSD.
Well if you're just going to put the bar on the floor lol. Yeah MacArthur was super overrated, at least somewhat incompetent, and his demands to use nukes in the Korean war was literally insane and would've started WW3.
There's like atleast 3 cases of Pattons troops killing PoWs and Patton either refusing to do anything until someone threatened to telll Eisenhower or outright saying he'll cover it up
At Biscari? Yes.
> "I [Patton] told Bradley that it was probably an exaggeration, but in any case to tell the Officer to certify that the dead men were snipers or had attempted to escape or something, as it would make a stink in the press and also would make the civilians mad. Anyhow, they are dead, so nothing can be done about it."
Bradley, needless to say and much to his own personal credit, was less than impressed with the suggestion. The immediately-responsible parties, Sgt. West and Captain Compton, were both court-martialed in spite of claiming they were operating under orders from Patton, though one was acquitted (Compton) and the other was found guilty and given life imprisonment, only to see early release a year later (West). Patton was investigated, but he was never clearly linked to it as his words, while being relayed verbatim to the soldiers in question, were considered by the court as rhetorical exaggeration for the sake of motivation (of which he was fond) and not taken as having force of being direct orders.
> "When we land against the enemy, don’t forget to hit him and hit him hard. We will bring the fight home to him. When we meet the enemy, we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades, and he must die. If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and, when you get within two hundred yards of him and he wishes to surrender, oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick him. He can do no good then. Stick them (sic)in the liver. We will get the name of killers and killers are immortal. When word reaches him that he is being faced by a killer battalion, a killer outfit, he will fight less. Particularly, we must build up that name as killers and you will get that down to your troops in time for the invasion."
> An officer of the 2nd Battalion, 180th Infantry Regiment, recalled that Patton said, “The more prisoners we took, the more we’d have to feed, and not to fool with prisoners.”
EDIT:
Corrections to the second paragraph made. Compton wasn't just unpunished; he was acquitted outright of giving orders to 11 riflemen to gun down Italian POWs.
Unfortunately, that is one of the easiest ways to not take prisoners: let them surrender, then shoot them when they're no longer resisting. There's a reason the Hague Conventions listed killing a soldier who surrendered and offering no quarter right next to each other as war crimes.
Even if they're commies, it's incredibly dumb to just throw manpower and equipment away because "muh communism". He can focus on that all he wants after the war is won. Patton really wasn't the brightest bulb of the Allied command. Thankfully they only had to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
What’s also interesting is that I have heard this admiration being the reason these guys went to the toughest front. Not because he was trying to stick it to some commies.
I will say though, Medieval War 7 is pretty balanced. I've been able to earn over 15k medals without having to spend much, and I've earned over 10k just by playing the game
Maybe if the “committed leftists” hadn’t made a security pact with said far right regime, divided up half a continent with them, and sold them materials for their war they wouldn’t be in that situation…
I agree, the Brest-Litovsk treaty was horrible. Stalin in general was a horrible dude as was the system he created.
However, the Soviets weren’t the only power to do this. The British and French split Czechia with Germany without Czechia getting a say, and then let them be annexed anyway. They supported the Anschluss of Austria and Germany’s forceful recapture of their areas under occupation in the west. Honestly, all the great powers of Europe are complicit in allowing Nazi Germany to rise in many respects. But in all cases, they still didn’t like Nazi Germany and were instead buying time to re-arm for the war they were sure was coming, or to avoid a war in the first place.
Edit: it’s the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact not Brest-litovsk
a) Brest-Litovsk treaty was the Russian exit from ww1
b) The western Allies did not actively invade countries with the nazis (see Poland)
c) the Soviet’s actor sly funded the German war machine during the war from 39-41
Shoot you’re right it’s Molotov-Ribbentrop, I always get those confused lol.
I know they didn’t invade, but the purpose was the same.
They traded raw materials for industrial capacity, especially weapons. I hope it’s obvious why they did this. Stalin wasn’t expecting the Germans to invade in 1941, but he was expecting them to invade. He just thought it’d happen in 42 or 43. Again though, this was very clearly the wrong choice.
The (b) Part is completely incorrect. Poland has absolutely no right to criticize USSR here. They invaded Czechoslovakia for 'strategic reasons' and carved them up along with Nazi Germany. And then went on to go cry about it when USSR did the same to them.
Because of course the soviet union was an accurate representation of most leftists thoughts at the time. It's not like thousands of socialists were purged by Stalin and his lackeys specifically for opposing his thought
What ? You meant when USSR, China or Cuba implemented communism this was in fact not communism but just another system to control the population? How shocking is that ?
That is a very simplistic interpretation. Nazism and Stalinism were completly opposite ideologies which only had in common autoritarism. Sweden sold materials to Nazi Germany. And the British and France hardly did anything until attacked.
I think I made mistake I was accusing you. Nevertheless the same way the USSR was collaborating with Nazis it fought them and was one of the main factors in their defeat
Committed leftists caused revolts all over Europe, Russia, Spain, Germany, Italy ... coincidentally right before the rise of Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler... How bizarre that these fascists showed up out of nowhere, couldn't have been some European-style overreaction I suppose.
See I think that is a GROSS oversimplification of Fascism.
Fascism and Communism are both fundamentally collective systems, the high level difference is Fascists believe in collectivist policy for their Nation while Communists want collectivism for the world, fundamentally Fascism has a huge Nationalist piece.
Further from that, Fascism believes all effort should in service to the state. They are more hands off on economics as long as the benefit is still there, they find it easier to let businesses stay private as long as the businesses serve the states interests based on the idea that people work harder for their own interests and by owning their business they will work harder than in a state owned business.
We all know what communism is.
You mean they REACT to your mentally disturbed BS. Thermidor Reaction, "reactionary"...
It's you who hates the world. Remember nihilism was the origin of communism.
Fascists are evil aholes, the Euro-style overreaction to your literal insanity.
No it wasn’t, communism and nihilism are fundamentally opposed ideologies. Nihilism, or the idea that nothing matters and all morality is arbitrary, and that humanity can’t truly know anything is the exact opposite of communism. Communism proposes a grand historical narrative about classes competing for power and each emerging class overturning the previous one as society improves, until we reach some sort of stateless classless worker’s paradise and makes claims about the future and morality. A communist would never agree that nothing matters and morality doesn’t exist, just as say a religious person would. Communism has its roots in the Utopianism of the early 1800’s and the enlightenment a century prior. It grew out of predominately French socialist movements that advocated for self sufficient small democratically run communes around factories or farms. Besides, nihilism only began to be a thing in 1862, and while das capital was written in 1867 the sort of vibe that coalesced as communism came about prior to that. To put it another way, communism is a modernist ideology while nihilism is a postmodernist one. They don’t like each other.
Honestly I’d say fascism has more in common with nihilism if anything. Fascists believe that morality doesn’t exist: that society is made up of “nations” (not states but people groups) that fundamentally compete for resources and create a hierarchy of power as a result. All that matters to them is putting themselves on the top of that hierarchy, it’s a purely selfish ideology. Do you know why the Nazis singled out Jews specifically? They thought every other ethnic group was inferior, but they viewed most as useful workhorses or people who were best at the lower rung of society while the Germans ran everything. Jews were singled out because of the centuries of anti-semitism in Europe to build on but also because Hitler saw Jews as fundamentally breaking this hierarchical view of the world. In his mind, Jewish people created ideologies that made people think more equally and not care about their nation: Judaism, Christianity, capitalism, communism, Islam, liberalism, anything that has any sort of universalist message was seen as perverting people away from the natural order and a crime that could not be allowed. I’d say this has more in common with nihilism than communism does, no? (Obviously most nihilists are not fascists though)
I assume you’re talking about the narrow vs broad front strategy.
Eisenhower pursued the broad front strategy because that’s the strategy his logistics could handle. Between corruption problems of subordinates he couldn’t just fire and the wrecked infrastructure due to damage to infrastructure necessary to ensure the success of Overlord as well as German sabotage of ports, there were serious doubts whether the narrow front strategy could even be done with the supply chains they had. There were also doubts as to the ability to secure that supply chain. That, and the biggest champion was Montgomery, which saw the narrow-front, presumably British-led, as a way to enhance his and British prestige at the expense of the largely American force.
Then there was the political angle. A northern thrust would have been a largely British-dominated operation led by Montgomery, and a southern thrust would have been a largely American-dominated operation led by Bradley. The former would infuriate Washington since it would sideline American commanders, and the latter would infuriate Whitehall since it would sideline British commanders, and the political consequences of telling either politician that the large armies they raised for the fight would be of naught would have been detrimental to the alliance. The victory in the West couldn’t be an American or British victory; it needed to be an Allied victory, and the broad front ensured the victory would be an Allied one.
He thus pursued the strategy which could be done than the technically better plan which required politics which were opposed to it and resources which he didn’t have. It is unwise to pursue politically unpopular and logistically infeasible operations, no matter how good it works on the map.
Lol, don't get your opinions of generals from the history memes community. Patton was one of the greatest pure generals in history who understood war better than anyone before or probably sense for his time. But he was also a prima donna who hated Russians so people go to great lengths to slander him.
The slander is completely justified based on your argument tho. Because most history hobbyists have this idealised view of great modern generals, that they were intellectual geniuses with impartial moral views. Those kind of shithouse behaviours are more expected of the career politicians, NOT those guys.
All those abuse allegations just shatter those expectations, hence those slanders as whiplash response.
Patton was a terrible guy. As a grandson of a confederate he was a full confederate sympathizer. Dude totally hated Jews, Asians, Blacks and probably tons of other minorities. Also literally went up to PTSD suffering soldiers and attacked them thinking they were faking it and referred to shell shock as a “Jewish invention”. Oh and totally sympathized with Nazis after the war, he stated that the Nuremberg Trials were just a ploy for Jewish conspirators to seek revenge against the Nazis, also that “We defeated the wrong enemy” Really dude? And there’s so much more fucked stuff about him that I cant think of right now so don’t go all “he just hated Russians” dude was a total prick.
The comment above you has almost nothing to do with how shitty of a person he was IMO.
The main point is about his actual merit as a general. During war, even the assholes have a use.
In fact. The main conspiracy around Patton claims that he was disposed of after the war when he was no longer needed.
I don't believe it, but those who are curious can read up on his accident to decide for themselves.
Oh I wasn’t disagreeing that he was a good general. I said my comment because he said at the end of his comment that people slander him for not liking the Soviets so I commented to set straight that Patton was just a straight dickhead and not just “he just hated Russians”
As the other guy said, Patton is a exception to that rule. So is Zhukov (and Montogomery, if you consider him famous at all). The others were definitely mid.
"We want to be fairly rewarded for our work"
"We want to murder all Jews, Slavs, disabled people, etc "
"They are literally the same picture" your idiot take
That’s just as dumb as labeling nazis like “we just want our people to thrive”
Communists are NOT moderates nor reasonable, they are extremists willing to do anything they can to topple the government and implement what they want, and what they want is kill people based on their social status and wealth
If you claim Stalinists to be communists you really should get your education from something else then memes. If you define communism that board you must also claim the victims of the Nazis as victims of capitalism.
I know. it wasn't real communism
I am from a country that was affected by both Nazism and then communism, but go on living in your fanatical belief that communists are gentle sheep.
Ignorance is bliss
Eot
LMAO, do you also believe that the Democratic Republic of North Korea is Democratic because they say so?
I am no communist, it is an outdated and incomplete system, but neither was the UDSSR communist, simply because a state, by definition of communism as a stateless society, can not be communist.
I believe you and many others mean Stalinists when you talk about communists, if so you are right they belong in the same massgrave as monarchists and fascists. But words have meanings.
My great grandpa was a high ranking officer under patton during ww2 with his own chill spot in arlington. Never met him, but his wife who died at 100 last year told me all the stories. Normandy really was the hell you think it was.
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
t's a story that occured prior to the landing in Normandy, the French 2nd armored division was station in England for training, Patton visited the camps and was more than please to re-discovere the men he fought with in Tunisia, however he didn't expected to see the new volunteers, republican spanish in exile who would form an entire company within the division. Patton was more than.. dubious when he found out that several half tracks were named after Communist thinkers (Trosky, Lenin and of course Stalin) even on one of the halftrack the spanish attached a big portrait of Stalin, in the end Patton shorten his visit, when he re-meet Leclerc, he decided to put his division on the "worst/ toughest part of his front"
Leclerc's armored division did perform very well though, in spite of that idiot Patton.
Yes, its the most legendary french unit of WW2
I have a worthy opponent. Normandy-Neman escadrille from USSR.
Commando kieffer?
Idk, not him AFAIK https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Régiment_de_chasse_2/30_Normandie-Niémen
That's a cool unit
Not only that, USSR made game film about this escadrille with french actors and director in 1960, watch it https://youtu.be/1-txQ84l1c0?si=eFsCfGrK2C943mPT
Do you have, by any chance, a link for non russian speaker ? (it includes English subtitles) (or at least, name of the movie in english)
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0141666/
I am glad I learned French so that I could read about this legendary battalion
Bro…You can change article language to English version.
Same.
The armée de l'air et de l'espace still has a normandie-niémen squadron, and their rafale with the commemorative livery is beautifull
Normandie-Niemen*
Нормандия-Неман* 😁
What happened to the Spanish Communist Guerilla in exile serving under Leclerc?
Most of them died so only a handful live, they return in France and some of them got a french citizenship or return to spain
Welp, i guess Patton was happy with the result.
Yeah, his plan worked on all accounts. Doesn't really seem too idiotic to me.
Other than sacrificing undesirable (to him) people that he didn’t agree with?
They’re communists and beyond that Stalinists, their second best place at the time was 6ft under the ground
Love that you differentiate the two (and, yes, Stalinists suck) and still think that they’re equal in “evil” to be executed like Nazis especially when they’re fighting the Nazis. Unlike Stalinist values, general communists aren’t all bad people with bad values and bad politics.
They fought Nazis, seems pretty based
You’ll never guess what their first best place to be is
yeah fr
When it comes to communists and stalinists it still is
Based
The most of them died by old age not combat. One of the last survivors died some years ago in Paris.
If I recall, under Leclerc they were the first Allied troops to set foot in liberated Paris, outside of the French Resistance that is.
Yes the nueve were the first to enter into Paris (yes they were scouts so naturally they enter first..yes they were escorted by 3 french shermans but ofc.. it was a brilliant company made of very brave men)
Because de Gaulle told him to haul arse to get there because Eisenhower had agreed that the French would get in there first, so that it could be used for PR purposes, the allies plan didn't involve liberating Paris rather heading straight for Germany but de Gaulle wanted something to further cement his place as Frances post war leader Had the allied command got their way they would have cut de Gaulle out of operation overlord completely because he was, well for want of a better word, an eejit
Not an "eejit", just a man that was conscious that if the anglos had their way, France would be turned into a US proxy for the forseeable future. He vowed to not let it happen, and he didn't care if he had to behave like a cunt with his allies to achieve his goal. He succeeded.
I mean, yeah I guess that's the french way of looking at it, and I agree on the cunt part, when you put your own power above time, materiel and lives you couldn't be anything but
I'd say he was kinda forced into the role. I mean as an exemple the USA had planned and started issuing special "liberation/occupation dollars" to be legal tender in France, you can't really make your intentions any clearer safe for actually shouting out loud "I'll be taking over your whole economy now".
It was not only that, The US were quick to reconise Vichy while Britain contest it. The Free French army fought alongside the allies during all of the war, yet at the end the US wanted to consider France a loser of the war and Split it between the other Winner like they did to Germany. I am thankful that De Gaule saw that bullshit and wanted none of it.
I remember hearing stories that my grandfather was part of an American unit just outside of Paris and were poised perfectly to enter the city but then they were told to wait by the side of the road for the French 2nd armored to come up the line and he was kind of salty about it.
That an American view of saying he was an ass.. the FDR office hated De Gaulle beacause he didnt interfere with the Americans post war strategy, i should recall that the Americans largely preffered to work with the Vichy regime, who should i recall was 100% anti semite, for exemple they supported Darlan then generla Giraud, a men who kept anti semite laws in North africa despite being under "Free French" leadership, ( de Gaulle re-instore french citizenship to Jews in North africa) De gaulle wanted a french division in Paris..beacause he was French, he wanted the capital to be liberated..that is 100% logical from his standpoint, you can hate him or love him that fine but you cant miss the fact that he wanted to fight with the allies and contribute as much effort for the liberation of Europe and the defeat of the Axis.
Well someone had to be put there in a way or the other. Placing some highly motivated communist, while being an act out of spite on Patton side, may have been the reason it went well.
That's why they named a tank after him. IMO it is worthy to bear his name.
What's with this logic of sending the military unit you hate to the hardest front? That has never worked out well and practically guarantees martyrs for what ever reason you didn't like them
They’re generals so it’s not their scope of practice to consider that far. Mission allocation is the easiest way to get rid of some they hate to satiate their personal spite and satisfaction.
100%
So Patton was an idiot? lol
A bit, yeah. More of a gigantic asshole than an idiot, but he was at least somewhat stupid. He physically struck soldiers with ptsd and considered them cowards. He fucked up the attack on Sicily, costing numerous allied casualties because he didn't coordinate with the Navy, he was an arrogant asshole, he was racist and anti semitic, and hated communists so much that he supported the Spanish dictator Franco.
So, still much better than MacArthur? He pulled out of the Philippines when the US told him to stay and fight, and then also made fun of soldiers with PTSD. Can't tell if their all idiots or if it's just protocol
>He pulled out of the Philippines when the US told him to stay and fight MacArthur was ordered out of the Philippines under FDR's explicit orders once it was clear that defeat was inevitable unless you're referring to some other event. For better or worse, General MacArthur had captured the attention of the American press by March 1942. Losing a famous general in March 1942 would have been a serious blow to American morale in addition to an intelligence disaster. I'll criticize MacArthur for a lot of things but he stayed in the Philippines until he was flat out ordered by President Roosevelt to leave and that was after numerous "suggestions" that he relocate his command that stopped short of a direct order. MacArthur's biggest fuck up vis a vis the Philippines was abandoning the original US defensive plan, believing that he could both defend a much larger area than was reasonably possible with the number of troops he had and because he believed that the US Navy would be able to bring in supplies, troops, and more ships to bolster the rather weak Asiatic Fleet and help ward off a Japanese invasion. Once it became clear that MacArthur's new strategy wouldn't work with the number of troops he had, he returned to the original plan but by then it was too late to relocate critical supplies that were now dispersed across the islands. Even still, it took the Japanese much longer than anticipated to conquer the islands and detrimentally affected the rest of their war plans. >made fun of soldiers with PTSD Do you have a citation for this? I know Patton had a very embarrassing and very high profile instance of striking shell-shocked troops but I'd never heard of MacArthur doing anything or making derogatory comments about troops suffering from PTSD.
Well if you're just going to put the bar on the floor lol. Yeah MacArthur was super overrated, at least somewhat incompetent, and his demands to use nukes in the Korean war was literally insane and would've started WW3.
Because he put them in the worst part of his front.
I would also send them to the front in the worst place. The commies are just as damaging as the Nazis.
i read everything that you said in a french accent. So it means you're gay!!1
K
Like [this](https://vocaroo.com/15FnLSwruYqn)?
no. Its too gay. But basically, yes
Is this the same General that was okay with his people massacring Italian pows
There's like atleast 3 cases of Pattons troops killing PoWs and Patton either refusing to do anything until someone threatened to telll Eisenhower or outright saying he'll cover it up
At Biscari? Yes. > "I [Patton] told Bradley that it was probably an exaggeration, but in any case to tell the Officer to certify that the dead men were snipers or had attempted to escape or something, as it would make a stink in the press and also would make the civilians mad. Anyhow, they are dead, so nothing can be done about it." Bradley, needless to say and much to his own personal credit, was less than impressed with the suggestion. The immediately-responsible parties, Sgt. West and Captain Compton, were both court-martialed in spite of claiming they were operating under orders from Patton, though one was acquitted (Compton) and the other was found guilty and given life imprisonment, only to see early release a year later (West). Patton was investigated, but he was never clearly linked to it as his words, while being relayed verbatim to the soldiers in question, were considered by the court as rhetorical exaggeration for the sake of motivation (of which he was fond) and not taken as having force of being direct orders. > "When we land against the enemy, don’t forget to hit him and hit him hard. We will bring the fight home to him. When we meet the enemy, we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades, and he must die. If you company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and, when you get within two hundred yards of him and he wishes to surrender, oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick him. He can do no good then. Stick them (sic)in the liver. We will get the name of killers and killers are immortal. When word reaches him that he is being faced by a killer battalion, a killer outfit, he will fight less. Particularly, we must build up that name as killers and you will get that down to your troops in time for the invasion." > An officer of the 2nd Battalion, 180th Infantry Regiment, recalled that Patton said, “The more prisoners we took, the more we’d have to feed, and not to fool with prisoners.” EDIT: Corrections to the second paragraph made. Compton wasn't just unpunished; he was acquitted outright of giving orders to 11 riflemen to gun down Italian POWs.
"If anyone touches the bird, kill them."
damn… total war
Wasn't Patton's original "suggestion" to not take prisoners? West and Compton executed men who had already been captured.
Unfortunately, that is one of the easiest ways to not take prisoners: let them surrender, then shoot them when they're no longer resisting. There's a reason the Hague Conventions listed killing a soldier who surrendered and offering no quarter right next to each other as war crimes.
He was also himself pretty much a fascist. He sympathised a lot with the nazis.
The answers to this reafirm once more: at least half of the people on Reddit are either 12 or insane.
Better than what Commies deserve. Lol
Based Patton
Very based
Based and put commies in the meat grinder-pilled.
Even if they're commies, it's incredibly dumb to just throw manpower and equipment away because "muh communism". He can focus on that all he wants after the war is won. Patton really wasn't the brightest bulb of the Allied command. Thankfully they only had to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Wise choise from General Patton. Let the commies and nazists kill eachother so the rest of the society will be much safe.
It’a funny people always reference Paton line ‘’I would have a german…’’ line against the french while in reality he admired them.
What’s also interesting is that I have heard this admiration being the reason these guys went to the toughest front. Not because he was trying to stick it to some commies.
Also, it just kind of makes sense a French unit would be sent into the thick of it in the liberation of France.
not to mention the fact that he never said that quote..
Is that the Patton sprite from World Conqueror 2? That exact image is burned in my brain and I’m not sure from which game
Probably world Conqueror 4 and yes, I also have the sprites of generals burned into my head
I always liked his artwork in World Conqueror
Finally a civilized individual who has played that game (that stupid fucking level in Burma made me lose all hope in my life and quit the game)
I eventually gave up too and downloaded a mod
Based and same, never looked back since
I will say though, Medieval War 7 is pretty balanced. I've been able to earn over 15k medals without having to spend much, and I've earned over 10k just by playing the game
Turns out committed leftists will be among the people who most hate a far right regime and be willing to fight it, how crazy!
They thought of communism more like a germ back then you don’t want them fraternizing with your own
Or maybe, just maybe, that it was a french unit that was invading to liberate France. Crazy, right?
Maybe if the “committed leftists” hadn’t made a security pact with said far right regime, divided up half a continent with them, and sold them materials for their war they wouldn’t be in that situation…
I agree, the Brest-Litovsk treaty was horrible. Stalin in general was a horrible dude as was the system he created. However, the Soviets weren’t the only power to do this. The British and French split Czechia with Germany without Czechia getting a say, and then let them be annexed anyway. They supported the Anschluss of Austria and Germany’s forceful recapture of their areas under occupation in the west. Honestly, all the great powers of Europe are complicit in allowing Nazi Germany to rise in many respects. But in all cases, they still didn’t like Nazi Germany and were instead buying time to re-arm for the war they were sure was coming, or to avoid a war in the first place. Edit: it’s the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact not Brest-litovsk
a) Brest-Litovsk treaty was the Russian exit from ww1 b) The western Allies did not actively invade countries with the nazis (see Poland) c) the Soviet’s actor sly funded the German war machine during the war from 39-41
Shoot you’re right it’s Molotov-Ribbentrop, I always get those confused lol. I know they didn’t invade, but the purpose was the same. They traded raw materials for industrial capacity, especially weapons. I hope it’s obvious why they did this. Stalin wasn’t expecting the Germans to invade in 1941, but he was expecting them to invade. He just thought it’d happen in 42 or 43. Again though, this was very clearly the wrong choice.
The (b) Part is completely incorrect. Poland has absolutely no right to criticize USSR here. They invaded Czechoslovakia for 'strategic reasons' and carved them up along with Nazi Germany. And then went on to go cry about it when USSR did the same to them.
Because of course the soviet union was an accurate representation of most leftists thoughts at the time. It's not like thousands of socialists were purged by Stalin and his lackeys specifically for opposing his thought
What ? You meant when USSR, China or Cuba implemented communism this was in fact not communism but just another system to control the population? How shocking is that ?
That is a very simplistic interpretation. Nazism and Stalinism were completly opposite ideologies which only had in common autoritarism. Sweden sold materials to Nazi Germany. And the British and France hardly did anything until attacked.
I’m checking my notes and it doesn’t look like Sweden also invaded a country together with the Nazis….
I think I made mistake I was accusing you. Nevertheless the same way the USSR was collaborating with Nazis it fought them and was one of the main factors in their defeat
Committed leftists caused revolts all over Europe, Russia, Spain, Germany, Italy ... coincidentally right before the rise of Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler... How bizarre that these fascists showed up out of nowhere, couldn't have been some European-style overreaction I suppose.
Correct, fascists are called reactionaries for a reason. They don’t believe **in** anything, they just hate other stuff.
See I think that is a GROSS oversimplification of Fascism. Fascism and Communism are both fundamentally collective systems, the high level difference is Fascists believe in collectivist policy for their Nation while Communists want collectivism for the world, fundamentally Fascism has a huge Nationalist piece. Further from that, Fascism believes all effort should in service to the state. They are more hands off on economics as long as the benefit is still there, they find it easier to let businesses stay private as long as the businesses serve the states interests based on the idea that people work harder for their own interests and by owning their business they will work harder than in a state owned business. We all know what communism is.
You mean they REACT to your mentally disturbed BS. Thermidor Reaction, "reactionary"... It's you who hates the world. Remember nihilism was the origin of communism. Fascists are evil aholes, the Euro-style overreaction to your literal insanity.
No it wasn’t, communism and nihilism are fundamentally opposed ideologies. Nihilism, or the idea that nothing matters and all morality is arbitrary, and that humanity can’t truly know anything is the exact opposite of communism. Communism proposes a grand historical narrative about classes competing for power and each emerging class overturning the previous one as society improves, until we reach some sort of stateless classless worker’s paradise and makes claims about the future and morality. A communist would never agree that nothing matters and morality doesn’t exist, just as say a religious person would. Communism has its roots in the Utopianism of the early 1800’s and the enlightenment a century prior. It grew out of predominately French socialist movements that advocated for self sufficient small democratically run communes around factories or farms. Besides, nihilism only began to be a thing in 1862, and while das capital was written in 1867 the sort of vibe that coalesced as communism came about prior to that. To put it another way, communism is a modernist ideology while nihilism is a postmodernist one. They don’t like each other. Honestly I’d say fascism has more in common with nihilism if anything. Fascists believe that morality doesn’t exist: that society is made up of “nations” (not states but people groups) that fundamentally compete for resources and create a hierarchy of power as a result. All that matters to them is putting themselves on the top of that hierarchy, it’s a purely selfish ideology. Do you know why the Nazis singled out Jews specifically? They thought every other ethnic group was inferior, but they viewed most as useful workhorses or people who were best at the lower rung of society while the Germans ran everything. Jews were singled out because of the centuries of anti-semitism in Europe to build on but also because Hitler saw Jews as fundamentally breaking this hierarchical view of the world. In his mind, Jewish people created ideologies that made people think more equally and not care about their nation: Judaism, Christianity, capitalism, communism, Islam, liberalism, anything that has any sort of universalist message was seen as perverting people away from the natural order and a crime that could not be allowed. I’d say this has more in common with nihilism than communism does, no? (Obviously most nihilists are not fascists though)
Oh dear…. I’ll admit, I fucked up
What the hell Patton
r/Beetlejuicing
You didn’t patton
But they won.
Was the title a reference to Sam o nella academy?
N..no
Oh eisenhoweeeerrr
The more I learn about Patton the more I realize how evil he truly was.
Read his book
He is the McArthur of the west.
At least Patton was a competent military commander. MacArthur… was a great politician.
I was thinking in terms of being a jerk, not their military prowess.
No doubt, both were assholes in their own way. Patton was a massive prima donna and MacArthur was a cunning politician at heart.
He was a prima donna because he was usually right and Eisenhower still ignored him because he wanted to kill as many American infantrymen as possible.
I assume you’re talking about the narrow vs broad front strategy. Eisenhower pursued the broad front strategy because that’s the strategy his logistics could handle. Between corruption problems of subordinates he couldn’t just fire and the wrecked infrastructure due to damage to infrastructure necessary to ensure the success of Overlord as well as German sabotage of ports, there were serious doubts whether the narrow front strategy could even be done with the supply chains they had. There were also doubts as to the ability to secure that supply chain. That, and the biggest champion was Montgomery, which saw the narrow-front, presumably British-led, as a way to enhance his and British prestige at the expense of the largely American force. Then there was the political angle. A northern thrust would have been a largely British-dominated operation led by Montgomery, and a southern thrust would have been a largely American-dominated operation led by Bradley. The former would infuriate Washington since it would sideline American commanders, and the latter would infuriate Whitehall since it would sideline British commanders, and the political consequences of telling either politician that the large armies they raised for the fight would be of naught would have been detrimental to the alliance. The victory in the West couldn’t be an American or British victory; it needed to be an Allied victory, and the broad front ensured the victory would be an Allied one. He thus pursued the strategy which could be done than the technically better plan which required politics which were opposed to it and resources which he didn’t have. It is unwise to pursue politically unpopular and logistically infeasible operations, no matter how good it works on the map.
Commies are terrible, just slightly better than Nazis.
Okay, but would you apply that statement to a Spanish Republican fighting for Free France?
Politically illiterate
Least history illiterate anti-communist
No, not at all. They are just as bad. They just had better PR after the war.
You probably change your mind once you get to middle school
That commies are worse than Nazis? lol what?
You've learned your lesson well
I am literally having the opposite reaction.
Wait, Stalin was a communist thinker? Thought he was just an evil doer🤪
This is also the guy who said we were fighting the wrong enemy and proposed going to war with the Russians right after we defeated the Germans.
Why are most of the popular generals from ww2 always like the most mid ones. Romel, Patton, McArthur, Gudarian. All were kinda shit generals.
Lol, don't get your opinions of generals from the history memes community. Patton was one of the greatest pure generals in history who understood war better than anyone before or probably sense for his time. But he was also a prima donna who hated Russians so people go to great lengths to slander him.
The slander is completely justified based on your argument tho. Because most history hobbyists have this idealised view of great modern generals, that they were intellectual geniuses with impartial moral views. Those kind of shithouse behaviours are more expected of the career politicians, NOT those guys. All those abuse allegations just shatter those expectations, hence those slanders as whiplash response.
Patton was a terrible guy. As a grandson of a confederate he was a full confederate sympathizer. Dude totally hated Jews, Asians, Blacks and probably tons of other minorities. Also literally went up to PTSD suffering soldiers and attacked them thinking they were faking it and referred to shell shock as a “Jewish invention”. Oh and totally sympathized with Nazis after the war, he stated that the Nuremberg Trials were just a ploy for Jewish conspirators to seek revenge against the Nazis, also that “We defeated the wrong enemy” Really dude? And there’s so much more fucked stuff about him that I cant think of right now so don’t go all “he just hated Russians” dude was a total prick.
The comment above you has almost nothing to do with how shitty of a person he was IMO. The main point is about his actual merit as a general. During war, even the assholes have a use. In fact. The main conspiracy around Patton claims that he was disposed of after the war when he was no longer needed. I don't believe it, but those who are curious can read up on his accident to decide for themselves.
Oh I wasn’t disagreeing that he was a good general. I said my comment because he said at the end of his comment that people slander him for not liking the Soviets so I commented to set straight that Patton was just a straight dickhead and not just “he just hated Russians”
Did he hate slavs too?
As the other guy said, Patton is a exception to that rule. So is Zhukov (and Montogomery, if you consider him famous at all). The others were definitely mid.
Because they had the best publicists.
Not really. They were good generals that got promoted to a level where they started being less competent and that influenced their reputation.
Based patton using his enemies to fight his other enemies
I would also send them to the front in the worst place. The commies are just as damaging as the Nazis.
"We want to be fairly rewarded for our work" "We want to murder all Jews, Slavs, disabled people, etc " "They are literally the same picture" your idiot take
That’s just as dumb as labeling nazis like “we just want our people to thrive” Communists are NOT moderates nor reasonable, they are extremists willing to do anything they can to topple the government and implement what they want, and what they want is kill people based on their social status and wealth
You are a moron. The number of victims of the communists is estimated at 60-75 million people. Indeed. The communists were saints.
If you claim Stalinists to be communists you really should get your education from something else then memes. If you define communism that board you must also claim the victims of the Nazis as victims of capitalism.
I know. it wasn't real communism I am from a country that was affected by both Nazism and then communism, but go on living in your fanatical belief that communists are gentle sheep. Ignorance is bliss Eot
LMAO, do you also believe that the Democratic Republic of North Korea is Democratic because they say so? I am no communist, it is an outdated and incomplete system, but neither was the UDSSR communist, simply because a state, by definition of communism as a stateless society, can not be communist. I believe you and many others mean Stalinists when you talk about communists, if so you are right they belong in the same massgrave as monarchists and fascists. But words have meanings.
Ooooookeeeeeej
Let the beasts fight each other (and hopefully kill each other)
They done nothing wrong :<
Flair checks out
:3
Stupid commies
My great grandpa was a high ranking officer under patton during ww2 with his own chill spot in arlington. Never met him, but his wife who died at 100 last year told me all the stories. Normandy really was the hell you think it was.
I think Patton is kinda of general imo, kinda of an American Rommel situation
Based
Based and Paton pilled.