The discussion revolves around George Patton's speech to the Third Army on June 5, 1944, particularly focusing on the language used, including references to "blood and guts." Participants explore the implications of Patton's rhetoric in the context of military leadership and the nature of war, debating its appropriateness and effectiveness.
The discussion features multiple competing views regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of Patton's speech. Participants do not reach a consensus on whether his language was beneficial or detrimental to his leadership and the morale of his troops.
Participants reference various interpretations of Patton's nickname and the historical context of his speech, with some noting the lack of definitive evidence regarding casualty ratios and the impact of his leadership style.
Readers interested in military history, leadership styles in wartime, and the psychological aspects of combat may find this discussion relevant.
If Patton really said any of this, he was a complete moron, an utterly retarded crapmonkey, and deserves to go down in history as one of the worst leaders ever. I pity any lackwit who thinks the man is in any way a good soldier.Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.
Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight.
We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world.
My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive.
We're going to murder those lousy Hun cock suckers by the bushel-****ing-basket.
War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts.
Adam said:Hightlights...
If Patton really said any of this, he was a complete moron, an utterly retarded crapmonkey, and deserves to go down in history as one of the worst leaders ever. I pity any lackwit who thinks the man is in any way a good soldier.
GENIERE said:Phatmonky – If you spent your life inverted, your thought processes would be screwed up also.
GENIERE said:Phatmonky - Hmm! My comment was meant to be in full agreement with you.
Robert Zaleski said:Patton talked to his troops in the vernacular readily understood by the common soldier; earthy and to the point. His troops loved him for it.
No where have I found a general belief that the name blood and guts comes from the number of his own men who died.Adam said:Okay, for those who have no idea of history, the nickname "Blood & Guts" for Patton was more a play on words than anything else. It was mentioned in his speech. It was also a reference to the number of troops (including his own) who died because of his attitude that guts and glory was what a "real man" was all about.
Adam: if you're going to war you want all your generals to be Pattons. i was in an armor brigade and patton was something of a hero. he was a man for the time. if you're going to fight - FIGHT!Adam said:Hightlights...
If Patton really said any of this, he was a complete moron, an utterly retarded crapmonkey, and deserves to go down in history as one of the worst leaders ever. I pity any lackwit who thinks the man is in any way a good soldier.
I don't think the nickname came from this particular speech. It's actually thought that was a mistatement from a reporter and that in his speech given to officers of the 2nd armored divison, he origionally said "blood and brains" in regards to what was needed to have a successful armored division. However, when the story was picked up by a news reporter he reported the statement incorrectly as "blood & guts" and from there the nickname developed.Adam said:Okay, for those who have no idea of history, the nickname "Blood & Guts" for Patton was more a play on words than anything else. It was mentioned in his speech.
This is an absolute falsification. Patton was extremely concerned with reducing the casualities of his soldiers. As can be seen by the high kill ratios of his enemies as compared to the low death ratios of his own soldiers. If anything the nickname relates more to his "colorful language" then any callousness towards the wellbeing of his soldiers.It was also a reference to the number of troops (including his own) who died because of his attitude that guts and glory was what a "real man" was all about.
"An undisciplined army always has the greatest casualties. A general who disciplines his troops until he gets spontaneous, automatic reaction to his commands will have the lowest rate of casualties."
Robert Zaleski said:Patton talked to his troops in the vernacular readily understood by the common soldier; earthy and to the point. His troops loved him for it.
Are you referring to the times he got his arse kicked? Or the times he was shut away as an embarrassment to the military? Or the times he simply ordered a human wave, because "charge" was his favourite word, and he got many of his own people killed?phatmonky said:They loved him for it, and responded with some of the best soldiering the world had/has ever seen.
No. You are assuming.All of you who are TRYING to find a problem with Patton's speech continue to make the same mistake of thinking about his words outside of the context of war.
Training, discipline, and intelligence are required.His speech is spot on, and is the type of required dialogue needed to make a successful military in battle.
Why? For the losses? The wins? The times he was shut away for being an embarrassment? The people he ordered to charge, who died? Or simply for nostalgia, feelings for "the good old days" which were never as good as people assume, for a chap who wasn't what the publicity made him out to be?olde drunk said:Adam: if you're going to war you want all your generals to be Pattons.
If you're going to fight - think!i was in an armor brigade and patton was something of a hero. he was a man for the time. if you're going to fight - FIGHT!
As a former soldier, I expect soldiers to abide by the rules their nations have signed on to. I expect soldiers to never even put a finger on the trigger until the target is confirmed. I expect officers to maintain order. I expect humans to be humane, as much as possible. And I do not accept the excuses of weak-willed slugs who try to rationalise their crimes by saying "War is hell, accept it and move on".now, as a pacifist, i am amazed that so many people expect war - combat to be fought according to some sort of rules, ethics.
Politicians send soldiers to die.that's the joke. civilians are hiding their heads in the sand, sending men to die and they expect them to wait till the other guy draws his gun - BULL*$%#!
No, it came from the people who died due to his "Charge!" idea of tactics.kat said:I don't think the nickname came from this particular speech.
Hence his orders to charge forward, leaving behind their supplies?This is an absolute falsification. Patton was extremely concerned with reducing the casualities of his soldiers.
Adam said:I recall another leader from the time who was also a very charismatic and inspiring public speaker.
Adam said:No, it came from the people who died due to his "Charge!" idea of tactics.
jimmy p said:Well said.
The speeches were very probably very awe inspiring, but I don't like the fact that he is depicting the Germans as "fascists" and "Hun". Less than 10% of the population were Nazi's and wanted that regime, especially around 1944. In fact most of the German soldiers were fighting because they had to NOT because they believed what they were doing was right. Very hate-filling, but at the end of the day, it won battles.
phatmonky said:War is not the time to be Politically correct. If you are going to shoot at someone, then you have to hate them.
I don't see how you can not like it, when you understand the reason for it, and know that it was effective.
Adam said:Phatmonky, please just read SOMETHING about Patton. Anything.