Patton The Movie
Robert James
Moderator's Note: The purpose of this newsgroup is the discussion of
WW2, NOT the discussion of movies and film-making. Keep replies to
this message on WW2 and not on movies or film-making or they will be
rejected as off-topic.
=====
I would like to hear your opinion on the accuracy of the movie
'Patton.'
Here is what I have so far:
Over all, I felt the movie had a reasonable degree of historical
accuracy,
for Hollywood, and did a reasonable job of portraying the subject,
General
Patton.
1. The Speech - Except for the famous first line 'No bastard ever won
a war
by dying for his country...,' it mostly follows the speech by Patton
to 6th
Armored Division, 3rd Army, in England, 5 Jun 44. Patton's real voice
was,
of course, higher in pitch than George C. Scott's.
2. General Omar Bradley actually disliked Patton quite a bit by the
end of
the war. Omar Bradley was a technical advisor to the film, which was
produced by Frank McCarthy, secretary to General Marshall during the
war,
and McCarthy needed Bradley's legal approval to portray the character
of
Bradley in the movie, hence Bradley's clout as technical advisor. I
understand why Bradley would have the movie portray him as the 'G.I.
General' (which he wasn't, really) but why would he depict himself as
Patton's loyal friend?
3. It is my understanding that the meeting with Air Vice Marshall
Arthur
Cunningham and General Buford concerning air cover was actually, in
fact,
interrupted by a Luftwaffe attack.
4. The only German aircraft seen in combat scenes are Heinkel HE 111s
(Germany's main medium bomber of the war) in the role of low level
ground
attack (attacking Allied headquarters in Tunisia near the start of the
movie, and later on during the Battle of El Guettar). HE111s, or any
other
medium to heavy bomber, would never be used for this purpose. The size
and
lack of maneuverability would make them way too vulnerable to ground
fire
and fighters. In addition to this, it appears that the same exact two
German
bombers are used throughout the movie, even in the scene where Rommel
lands
and in the Battle of the Bulge.
5. Patton allegedly reads Rommel's book 'The Tank In Attack'. Rommel's
actual book was 'Infantrie greift an' (Infantry Attacks); it dealt
with
small unit infantry actions in WWI; and it was not translated into
English
until 1944 (two years after the Battle of El Guettar). It is not clear
if
Patton read this book.
6. 'Rommel's 10th panzer is going to hit us at El Guettar,' says an
aid to
Patton in the movie. Was it 10th Panzer in the actual war? Isn't that
a
division? It clearly wasn't an entire division in the battle scene in
the
movie. Also, the Germans were using M47s (tan colored for the desert,
I
guess) and the Americans were using M60s. These same tanks are used
throughout the movie. This particular battle at El-Guettar is depicted
as an
ambush. Is that accurate? Would the self-propelled artillery have been
as
close to the battle as it appears in the movie?
7. In the scene where Montgomery's aide drives up to him in the Jeep,
and
says 'Sir, Patton's taken Palermo!', the British flag behind Monty is
flying
upside-down. (Look at the diagonal stripes: The thick white stripes
should
face clockwise when viewed from the front, here they don't.)
8. 'Does he want me to give it back?' said not about Palermo but a
famous
fortress city in France. What was the name? I remember something about
Bradley saying 'Don't take that city with only two divisions' and
Patton had
already taken it and said 'Do you want me to give it back,' or
something
like that.
9. In D'Este's 'A Genius For War,' the Patton/Montgomery rivalry,
especially
in Sicily, and especially as concerns the race for Messina, is played
down
somewhat. If memory serves, D'Este reports that Montgomery even
suggested to
Patton that he take Messina. I actually find the movie to be more
accurate.
Thoughts?
10. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. My French is almost
non-existent.
I think this means 'Forward, forward, always forward' or 'Aggression,
aggression, always aggression.' Did Frederick The Great Say this? (I
think
he did). Did Patton say this to Truscott during the drive along
northern
Sicily?
11. In the drive east along North Sicily, Patton ordered General
Truscott to
land at a beach and cut off the Germans while other units of Patton's
army
were, apparently, supposed to drive toward this beach. But the movie
implies
that the troops pushing toward the beachhead could not get there fast
enough
and so the boys on the beach were catching hell from the Germans. What
beach
was this? Did Patton go down to the front and find a river ford for
the
units pushing toward the beach?
12. Also represented as occurring in Sicily, did Patton go to the
front of a
column as it was being strafed to get it moving? Did he shoot the
mules?
13. Did he have an African-American aid? I love Patton but let us
remember
that he was somewhat racist.
14. A reading of Patton's diary and letters reveals that he often
spoke of
reincarnation and of his belief that he had played a part in many past
battles, and that he often spoke of this to others, including other
general
officers as is portrayed in the movie. His diary and letters also
speak
often of his belief that he was destined for greatness in battle and
war.
Thoughts?
15. The slapping incident, after which Ike told the press 'Don't get
him
fired since I need him to win this war.' When did Ike say this?
16. Hitler and the German High Command were convinced that Patton
would land
at Pas De Calais due to their opinion of Patton as the premier or at
least
as the most aggressive Allied Commander and due to operation FORTITUDE
and
due to Calais' proximity to both England and major ports. Thoughts?
17. Patton, if not a warmonger in the sense of being allowed to start
wars,
was quite the warmonger in real life and did, apparently, say 'All
other
forms of human endeavor pale in comparison to war' and 'I love it. God
help
me but I do love it so. I love it more than my life.' I believe this
is in
his diary. Thoughts?
18. Patton gave a medal to a chaplain for a prayer. I'm sure I
remember
reading this.
19. No evidence apparently exists to indicate that FDR promised Patton
a
Pacific command after the war in Europe. And, of course, MacArthur
would
never allow this, him and Patton in the same theatre.
20. The meeting with Russian General M. E. Katukov, of the First
Guards Tank
Army, during which Patton called him a Russian son of a bitch. True?
At all?
21. At the end of the movie Patton is seen walking his dog Willie
outside a
Bavarian village. George C. Scott's voice is heard on the soundtrack
ruminating on the Roman triumphs. This is from Robert Payne's book The
Roman
Triumph, I believe.
Any additions are welcome.
WalterM140
Hollywood" episode about "PATTON", saying that George C. Scott nailed
Patton's mannerisms perfectly.
The movie changed a few things. The message that Patton received
saying that he was not allowed to take Palermo was in fact sent in
regard to Trier two years later. But Patton did say, "ask them if
they want me to give it back!"
Walt
Bill MacArthur
news:<3dc56cd...@news.pacific.net.au>...
> =====
> 16. Hitler and the German High Command were convinced that Patton
> would land
> at Pas De Calais due to their opinion of Patton as the premier or at
> least
> as the most aggressive Allied Commander and due to operation FORTITUDE
> and
> due to Calais' proximity to both England and major ports. Thoughts?
>
gained experience in both North Africa and Sicily. The Germans might
not have believed the slapping incident was the real reason for his
recall. They probably thought that he was recalled specifically to
spearhead the D-Day invasion. Second, Patton was only part of the Pas
de Calais deception. The Allies were also heavily bombing the Calais
sector at a level twice that of Normandy IIRC. There were also
several other deceptions conducted. Third, the Pas is the obvious
choice for the invasion because of its short travel.
ISTM that the Germans would have expected Montgomery to lead the D-Day
invasion based on his successful track record in the Mediterranean.
Patton's star had definitely risen but it was on a smaller scale. I
doubt that his accomplishments were sufficient to consider him the
premier Allied Commander. Part of the deception was necessary to
convince the Germans that Patton did have an army near Dover and he
was going to lead the invasion.
narrl...@hotmail.com
[many snips, in order to concentrate on answers I
don't have to look up--and because I dislike long
posts. EF]
> 4. The only German aircraft seen in combat scenes are Heinkel HE 111s
The aircraft and tanks used were leased from
the Spanish armed forces. The movie was shot there,
in part because of the availability of such WWII
era (or close) equipment. I agree that low-level
strafing by He 111s was pushing things a bit far,
but it certainly -looked- impressive.
> 6. 'Rommel's 10th panzer is going to hit us at El Guettar,' says an
> Was it 10th Panzer in the actual war?
I believe it was--at least, elements of 10th P.D.
and 21st P.D. 10th was sent to Tunisia in late '42,
IIRC.
> Would the self-propelled artillery have been
> as close to the battle as it appears in the movie?
No, but neither would the attack have been delivered
as it was, either. Movies require spectacle, and
a modern battlefield is generally too "empty" to make
good spectacle.
> 10. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace.
> I think this means 'Forward, forward, always forward' or 'Aggression,
> aggression, always aggression.'
Audacity, or Boldness, would be better fits, I think.
It's variously attributed--sometimes to Napoleon,
sometimes to the French Revolutionary Mirabeau (?).
> 13. Did he have an African-American aid? I love Patton but let us
> remember that he was somewhat racist.
Yes to both. The one doesn't preclude the other.
The black sergeant, whose name escapes me, was an
orderly or personal servant ("batman" in British
usage), not an "aide" which is usually a junior
officer.
> 14. A reading of Patton's diary and letters reveals that he often
> spoke of reincarnation
One of his recent biographers (D'Este or Hirschon,
I forget which) posits that this was a psychological
defense mechanism against his fear of death.
> 16. Hitler and the German High Command were convinced that Patton
> would land at Pas De Calais [snip explication].
Largely true. At the level of strategic intelligence
and deception, as well as psychological understanding
of the other side, the Allies were far and away superior
to the Germans.
> 17. Patton, if not a warmonger in the sense of being allowed to start
> wars,was quite the warmonger in real life and did, apparently, say 'All
> otherforms of human endeavor pale in comparison to war' and 'I love it. God
> help me but I do love it so. I love it more than my life.'
Why not? Some people are 'born warriors.' It is a modern
myth that -nobody- enjoys war. If some men didn't enjoy it
hugely, and other men didn't find it enjoyable at least in
part and for a time, we'd have fewer of them IMHO.
> 18. Patton gave a medal to a chaplain for a prayer.
Any staff officer attached to a major HQ would likely
pick up one or two non-combat decorations for meritorious
service. That's probably what happened here.
Ed Frank
David Thornley
narrl...@hotmail.com <soc.history.war.world-war-ii> wrote:
>"Robert James":
>
>[many snips, in order to concentrate on answers I
>don't have to look up--and because I dislike long
>posts. EF]
>
>> 13. Did he have an African-American aid? I love Patton but let us
>> remember that he was somewhat racist.
>
>Yes to both. The one doesn't preclude the other.
>The black sergeant, whose name escapes me, was an
>orderly or personal servant ("batman" in British
>usage), not an "aide" which is usually a junior
>officer.
>
Sergeant Meeks, IIRC. Patton's racism was not quite what you would
see nowadays. Patton seems to have not had the usual dislike
of people of other races, but did believe that some races were
inferior. When his army was assigned a tank battalion (colored),
he wrote down that the men were fine soldiers, but that colored
people couldn't think fast enough to be useful in a tank battle.
IIRC, he gave them the Speech anyway, and used them properly, putting
them in situations where they could succeed, unlike some other
commanders.
>> 14. A reading of Patton's diary and letters reveals that he often
>> spoke of reincarnation
>
>One of his recent biographers (D'Este or Hirschon,
>I forget which) posits that this was a psychological
>defense mechanism against his fear of death.
>
I haven't read Hirschon, but I don't think that was in d'Este.
d'Este found a marginal note in one of his military history books,
written by Patton, that said that the account there of one particular
battle was a pack of lies, and he knew it because "I was there".
>> 17. Patton, if not a warmonger in the sense of being allowed to start
>> wars,was quite the warmonger in real life and did, apparently, say 'All
>> otherforms of human endeavor pale in comparison to war' and 'I love it. God
>> help me but I do love it so. I love it more than my life.'
>
>Why not? Some people are 'born warriors.' It is a modern
>myth that -nobody- enjoys war. If some men didn't enjoy it
>hugely, and other men didn't find it enjoyable at least in
>part and for a time, we'd have fewer of them IMHO.
>
Probably true. Most soldiers don't want to be in a war, but there
are a few. Patton was probably an extreme case.
>> 18. Patton gave a medal to a chaplain for a prayer.
>
>Any staff officer attached to a major HQ would likely
>pick up one or two non-combat decorations for meritorious
>service. That's probably what happened here.
>
Without looking it up, I think it may have happened during the
Battle of the Bulge. Patton's army was fighting hard, but
couldn't get air support because of the weather. Believing
that the war against Nazi Germany was divinely ordained, and
therefore that he could call for Divine assistance, he ordered
the chaplain to write and circulate a prayer for clear skies
so he could get some air support. The chaplain did, the skies
cleared up, and Patton at least recommended him for a medal.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
--
Lawrence Dillard
> 'Patton.'
>
the general and of the progress of the war.
>
> 1. The Speech -
>
Appears to be amalgam of many such speeches Gen Patton gave his and other
troops. One of Patton's observations was that the typical US soldier of
the
day was too casual in his approach to war. Patton wanted to awaken a
hatred
for the Axis in his soldiers, or failing that, to appeal to their
competitive instincts--that they were involved in a competition--a deadly
one--of which to win they had better call on the same resources they
employed to win a game, i.e., maculine courage, stamina, repetition,
discipline, teamwork and a contempt for the opposition.
>
Some of the troops, whether they heard the speech or not, did develop a
hatred for the Axis, which to which they gave vent in the form of war
crimes. Some authors have tried to implicate Patton in these excesses.
>
>
> 2. General Omar Bradley actually disliked Patton quite a bit by the
> end of the war. Omar Bradley was a technical advisor to the film, which
was
> produced by Frank McCarthy, secretary to General Marshall during the
> war, and McCarthy needed Bradley's legal approval to portray the
character
> of Bradley in the movie,
>
he had indeed played an important role both in certain of Patton's
successes
and in some of his failures.
>
>
hence Bradley's clout as technical advisor. I
> understand why Bradley would have the movie portray him as the 'G.I.
> General' (which he wasn't, really) but why would he depict himself as
> Patton's loyal friend?
>
While
serving under Gen Patton's command, Gen Bradley accepted many an order he
disagreed with, but then promptly and loyally carried out, both in N
Africa
and in Sicily. He also helped to cover up the infamous Sicily slapping
incidents, at some risk to his own career, for some time. Finally,
although
Gen Bradley was never truly comfortable having Gen Patton as one of his
army
commanders, he bore the burden of commanding the bumptious Paton with some
grace.
>
> 3. It is my understanding that the meeting with Air Vice Marshall Arthur
> Cunningham and General Buford concerning air cover was actually, in
> fact, interrupted by a Luftwaffe attack.
>
bombers roamed with impunity over US-held positions in N Africa, Patton
met
with "Mary" Cunningham and protested the lack of fighter protection being
provided those troops. The Air VM responded by claiming that the
air-coverage was adequate and that certain commanders, meaning Patton,
were
excusing poor infantry performance and scapegoating the tactical air cover
being provided. There were raised voices frequently during the conference.
Gen Patton was incensed at the reply; to cool things off, Commonwealth Air
Marshall Tedder and a ranking US airman were sent to placate Patton.
Indeed, just as the two airmen were asseverating that the Allies held air
superiority over the Axis in the entire Mediterranean, four German bombers
flew over the town, bombing. No "Gen Buford" appears to have been
involved.
>snip
>
> 7. In the scene where Montgomery's aide drives up to him in the Jeep,
> and says 'Sir, Patton's taken Palermo!',
>
that Patton should march on Palermo before turning east along the north
coast of Sicily in an appproach toward Messina. There was no serious
rivalry
between Gen Patton and Gen Montgomery, simply a shared desire for
recognition (both had terrific egos) and success (both aspired to higher
command) in the fighting.
>
> 8. 'Does he want me to give it back?' said not about Palermo but a
> famous fortress city in France. What was the name?
>
bypassing 12 AG (Bradley), telling him to skirt around that city, as, in
their estimation, he had not enough divisions (three, they believed) to do
so. However, one of Patton's corps commanders shortly informed him that
he
had taken Trier using two divisions, and asked for follow-up orders.
Patton
replied to SHAEF, via channels of 12 AG, "Have taken Trier with two
divisions. Should I give it back?"
>
I remember something about
> Bradley saying 'Don't take that city with only two divisions' and
or
> something like that.
>
In fact, Gen Bradley was being kept abreast of the situation by Gen
Patton,
and was not amused that SHAEF would circumvent him and issue directives to
one of his army commanders withoiut his knowledge. Gen Bradley also noted
Gen Patton's expression of loyalty in replying to SHAEF via 12 AG
channels,
as was called for by the rules of chain of command.
>
> 9. In D'Este's 'A Genius For War,' the Patton/Montgomery rivalry,
> especially in Sicily, and especially as concerns the race for Messina,
is
played
> down somewhat. If memory serves, D'Este reports that Montgomery even
> suggested to Patton that he take Messina. I actually find the movie to
be
more
> accurate. Thoughts?
>
to pincer the remaining Germans between their two forces, one coming from
the west, the other from the south. he Germans evacuated too swiftly,
however, for this to happen.
>
> 10. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace. My French is almost
'Aggression,
> aggression, always aggression.' Did Frederick The Great Say this? (I
think
> he did). Did Patton say this to Truscott during the drive along northern
> Sicily?
>
Trsucott disagreed over whether enough time had been alloted to properly
prepare for an amphibious assault along the north coast of Sicily,
Truscott
asking for a delay, Patton demurring. As far as I know from the reading,
at
that juncture, Gen Patton did not use that phrase.
>
> SNIP
>
Did Patton go down to the front and find a river ford for the
> units pushing toward the beach?
>
involved was trying to locate a ford for crossing tanks over a river. Gen
Patton is said to have spotted a shallow portion of the river shortly
before, suitable for tanks to ford unaided by bridging, and encouraged the
unit commander to move with alacrity or face being relieved.
>
>
> 12. Also represented as occurring in Sicily, did Patton go to the
> front of a column as it was being strafed to get it moving? Did he shoot
the
> mules?
>
happenstance nearby on inspection, is said to have discovered that an
entire
column was making itself a sitting duck because they failed to remove a
somehow stalled donkey-cart out of their way. John Hersey, in "A Bell For
Adano" has a scene in which a cranky general abruptly shoots the beast,
killing it, then orders the column to resume its advance posthaste.
>
> 13. Did he have an African-American aid? I love Patton but let us
> remember that he was somewhat racist.
>
during
many a campaign and was, IIRC, a pall-bearer at the general's funeral.
Meeks
was African- American.
SNIPS
--
TSBench
(David
Thornley) writes:
>>Yes to both. The one doesn't preclude the other.
>>The black sergeant, whose name escapes me, was an
>>orderly or personal servant ("batman" in British
>>usage), not an "aide" which is usually a junior
>>officer.
>>
>Sergeant Meeks, IIRC. Patton's racism was not quite what you would
>see nowadays. Patton seems to have not had the usual dislike
>of people of other races, but did believe that some races were
>inferior.>>>
Master Sergeant Meeks was a pallbearer at Patton's funeral, a fact
which was
undoubted not lost on Bedell Smith, who was pointedly snubbed for the
honor by
Patton's widow, and replaced by Meeks.
Both Patton and his wife, Beatrice, a Massachusetts Ayer (IIRC), both
carried
some of the prejudicial baggage of their social class for the time,
but Patton
seemed to have been pretty pragmatic about not letting it influence
too many
important decisions.
Regards,
TSB
V-Man
>that Patton should march on Palermo before turning east along the north
>coast of Sicily in an appproach toward Messina.
Not according to d'Este or Pattons personal papers.
Alexander seems to have had no clear idea of what to do after
securing the
beaches (possibly reflecting his desire to let the commanders on the
ground to
the thinking - they were closer, after all!).
Patton developed his plan along with Monty and Bradly, and they
informed
Alexander later of their plan, once it was in motion.
(original poster)
>>I actually find the movie to
>>be more accurate. Thoughts?
d'Este had access to the patton family and Patton's personal papers.
You buy
the film over scholarship?
Play more with Claymore! V-Man
Living Vicariously through my Characters...
Lawrence Dillard
"V-Man" <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
news:3dd1c700...@news.pacific.net.au...
> >In fact, Generals Patton, Alexander and Montgomery had reached agreement
> >that Patton should march on Palermo before turning east along the north
>
> Not according to d'Este or Pattons personal papers.
In fact, the "agreement" I wrote of was reached in a sort of
roundabout
manner, when Gen Montgomery realized that his initial offensive had
been
effectively checked by German resistance near Catania, and was
composed of
several meetings of the mind, most involving only two of the three
generals
at a given time.
Gen Montgomery proposed to Gen Alexander On July 13 that he change the
focus
of his advance to the West side of Mt Etna, thence to Messina,
although to
do so would require pre-emption of a route (124) assigned in the
pre-invasion planning to US forces (under Gen Bradley). However, even
before
consultation with and before informing Gen Alexander of his idea,
Monty had
put his idea into motion, much to the ire of Gen Bradley and others.
The
first Gen Patton heard of this officially was at lunch on the 13th,
when Gen
Alexander arrived to see Gen Patton to impart the good news. Gen
Patton
voiced no direct opposition, but did wheedle permission from Gen
Alexander
to allow his forces to seize a couple of towns (Agrigento and Porto
Empedocle) which would "facilitate his forces' re-supply".
As it was, Gen Bradley's forces were better-conformed, with
readily-available artillery support, than the Canadians who replaced
them in
the advance, as the Canadians' artillery was delayed in getting
forward. The
delay in the arrival of the artillery meant that the Germans were
allowed
breathing room to shore up the weakest and least complete portion of
the
Etna line, and their resistance was spirited.
On July 16, Gen Patton flew to Tunis and met again with Gen Alexander,
and
presented a follow-on proposal, for a push to the north and northwest
and
the taking of Palermo, along the northern coast of the island, thence
an
advance to Messina. Gen Alexander, possibly to partially make amends
for Gen
Montgomery's presumptuous pre-emption of Route 124, accepted Gen
Patton's
proposal.
On July 25, Gen Patton flew to Siracusa to confer with Gens Alexander
and
Montgomery; using a map placed on the hood of a jeep, the two army
commanders (without waiting for a late Gen Alexander to arrive)
sketched out
how Gen Patton's forces would have control of two almost parallel
roads
leading from Palermo to Messina, one a coastal road and another
several
miles inland. Gen Montgomery now generously proposed that Gen
Patton's
forces capture Messina, and that their respective forces both were to
head
for Taormina, thus squeezing the Germans facing Monty at Catania
(where
Monty's drive had stalled) into a pocket between them, or force them
to
withdraw towards Messina. Gen Alexander arrived late, after the
generals'
meeting, and (probably inevitably) approved the two commanders' plan.
Gen Alexander's style of command involved a gentle touch rather than a
vigorous clutch. Gen Alexander's position called for him to supervise
and
abet the efforts of force commanders under his command. Hence, Gen
Montgomery, a headstrong, ambitious personality riding high after his
successes in N Africa, took as vigorous advantage of the latitude
allowed
him by his commander as he could, and perhaps more, at times. By
contrast,
Gen Patton, also headstrong and ambitious, took advantage of Gen
Montgomery's presumptuous behavior to beard Gen Alexander for, in
turn, more
latitude in his operations. Between the cooperative operations of the
two
generals, the Germans were forced off the island, albeit with fewer
losses
in personnel and equipment than the Allies might have desired, by Aug
17.
What more could Gen Alexander have wanted, except for an earlier end
to the
campaign; what more could have been expected of him? It seems to me
that
Gen Alexander performed well enough in his role as Army Group
commander, and
that had he elected to express his command prerogatives more firmly he
might
have found himself embroiled in fractious and time-consuming
confrontations
with Gen Montgomery, and might have seen a poorer performance from the
US
contingent. Hence by avoiding confrontation and allowing latitude for
enterprise by his subordinates, he did his job as well at it could
have been
done.
>
> Alexander seems to have had no clear idea of what to do after
> securing the
> beaches (possibly reflecting his desire to let the commanders on the
> ground to
> the thinking - they were closer, after all!).
>
> Patton developed his plan along with Monty and Bradley, and they
> informed
> Alexander later of their plan, once it was in motion.
Not quite. Gen Bradley played no role in the generation of the final
plans
and was privately very critical of (at least) Montgomery and Patton,
as the
two of them appeared to be cooperating in diminishing the role played
by
forces directly under Bradley's command.
As related above, Patton first properly presented his plans to Gen
Alexander
and received permission to execute his plans before proceeding. The
planning
for the final stages in Sicily occurred in Siracusa, with Gen
Alexander
present, although late-arriving. Only after Gen Alexander had formally
approved did the two subordinate commanders place their plan into
motion.
The big prize of the Sicilian operation was Messina. The basic idea
was to
force the Nazis off the island, and if possible capture the bulk of
their
forces before they could evacuate. The former was accomplished, the
latter
was not. Even had Gen Alexander commanded in the (presumed) style of
FM Alan
Brooke, it is difficult to imagine an earlier success; the Germans
fought
very skillfully in their withdrawal everywhere on the island.
>
SNIP remainder
V-Man
>met
>with "Mary" Cunningham and protested the lack of fighter protection being
>provided those troops.
Coningham and they didn't meet until after Coningham sent a letter around to
all major commands in reply to a letter by Patton. the "accusation" was in
Coningham's letter and that action was inappropriate. he accused, as the film
says, commanders of blaming the air forces for a lack of progress on the
ground. Ther were other statements, but it's saturday and I dont' feel like
digging d'Este out.
Play more with Claymore! V-Man
Living Vicariously through my Characters...
--