mmmm.... I wouldn't go that far, either. Pulled away some supplies and divisions away from Hitler's Eastern front? Sure. Provided Entertainment and Target Practice for Rommel? Absolutely... Convinced our British and Free French Allies that we were a bunch of incompetent morons? Pretty Much. We only 'won' in Africa because we managed to strangle Rommel's supply lines. He had to leave to find gas
On the positive side - We (the USA) learned a LOT, which we applied in Italy and Europe. Net sum, though: While we clearly did the great majority of the work in the Pacific... In terms of Europe, our contribution was to Bankroll and Supply England
{to keep them alive as a thorn in Hitler's side - the Battle of Britain was won by the time of Lend/Lease}, and to keep Russia fighting and grinding away Nazi power until we could get our sh*t together enough to combine with England and provide the Hammer to the Soviet's Anvil.
But ultimately: Generals Winter, Zhukov, and "Hitler", combined with Russian tenacity and 10's of millions sacrificed are what saved Russia's asses.
In the USA, we downplay that fact
{...mostly from Cold War ideolology, IMHO. But Americans are also fairly self centered as a general rule}. But the truth of the matter is Germany's best fought and died on the steppes and in the ruins of Russian cities. Not in France or Belgium.
I agree with much of this, but the assessment of Africa I don't think is entirely accurate. For one thing, Rommel, with a smaller force and much more limited supplies, had just finished kicking the British-led allies all the way across the continent. Patton's forces commanded a considerable level of respect amongst the allies. Remember, the early days of US forces in Africa, they were under British command, and had horrendous equipment. It wasn't until Patton was given command of II Corps to relieve Fredendall that the true ability of Patton and his forces was fully unleashed. The only earlier victories previous to this by the allies in Africa was Compass, and that was against a truly incompetent force, the Italians, and a well-organized push by the Anzac forces (8th Army IIRC?), which briefly succeeded in causing Rommel to reorganize before he was able to steamroll almost to Cairo.
It's also worth noting that not only did Patton not disappoint in North Africa, but he proved to be so formidable and ferocious that the German general corps greatly feared his presence later in the invasion of Europe. There was certainly some inexperience and incompetence at the lower levels, compounded by inferior equipment that marred the early days, but there was certainly nothing for anyone to look down on. The British had taken a solid pounding overall already, with a huge number of failures until Montgomery came in and truly stepped up their game tactically and strategically. Montgomery perhaps got a shade too much credit though, as the later boondoggle Market Garden proved to be an ambitious but flawed mess.
Overall the British command outside of Montgomery weren't overly fond of Patton, but his results commanded respect regardless. I think they underestimated his actual organizational and tactical skills, put off by his blustering, yelling, and rabid focus on attacking the enemy.
Anyway, I think this sums him up well.
The French proclaimed him an equal to. Napoleon, and these were the views from his adversaries :
Patton as viewed by the enemy
From 1943 on, it was clear that a consensus existed in the German Army officer corps that of all Allied ground force commanders, the enemy general they feared the most was Patton. Adolf Hitler himself was impressed by Patton, reportedly calling him "that crazy cowboy general", and "the most dangerous man [the Allies] have." Erwin Rommel credited Patton with executing "the most astonishing achievement in mobile warfare." Generaloberst Alfred Jodl, chief of staff of the German Army, stated that Patton "was the American Guderian. He was very bold and preferred large movements. He took big risks and won big successes." Generalfeldmarschall Albert Kesselring noted that "Patton had developed tank warfare into an art, and understood how to handle tanks brilliantly in the field. I feel compelled, therefore, to compare him with Generalfeldmarschall Rommel, who likewise had mastered the art of tank warfare. Both of them had a kind of second sight in regard to this type of warfare." Referring to the escape of the Afrika Korps Panzerarmee after the battle of El Alamein, General Fritz Bayerlein opined that "I do not think that General Patton would let us get away so easily." Oberstleutnant Horst Freiherr von Wangenheim, operations officer of the 277th Volksgrenadier Division, stated that "General Patton is the most feared general on all fronts. [His] tactics are daring and unpredictable...He is the most modern general and the best commander of [combined] armored and infantry forces." After the war, General der Infanterie Günther Blumentritt revealed that "We regarded Patton extremely highly, as the most aggressive Panzer-General of the Allies. A man of incredible initiative and lightning-like action." General der Panzertruppen Hasso von Manteuffel, who had fought both Soviet and Anglo-American tank commanders, agreed: "Patton! No doubt about this. He was a brilliant panzer army commander."
In an interview conducted for Stars and Stripes just after his capture, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt summed up the predominant German view of the American general: "Patton," Rundstedt concluded simply, "he is your best."
Facebook
Twitter