Lingusitics Did Patton's June 5, 1944 Speech Include Blood and Guts Language?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert Zaleski
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Blood
Click For Summary
George Patton's June 5, 1944 speech to the Third Army emphasized the brutal realities of war, asserting that real men embrace the fight and must be prepared to inflict violence to survive. His use of aggressive language, including references to killing the enemy, sparked debate about his leadership style and effectiveness. Critics argue that such rhetoric reflects poor judgment and a disregard for the lives of his soldiers, while supporters contend that it motivated troops and was appropriate within the context of war. The nickname "Blood and Guts" is discussed as a misinterpretation of his intent, with some arguing it highlights his colorful language rather than a callous attitude towards casualties. Ultimately, the discussion reveals a divide between those who view Patton's approach as necessary for military success and those who criticize it as reckless.
  • #31
Im with phatmonky on this one. Prove your newest assertion Adam.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Odd that the two most sourceless and vehemently ignorant posters (one of whom admits to being unwilling to read links and long posts of information provided by others) would ask for such from others.

It's not a matter of assertions. It's all publicly available knowledge. Patton won a few major victories, mainly through ordering his troops to charge ahead blindly, ignoring the fact that his single tactic left them without supplies. In the process of charging ahead, spurred on by Patton's "balls will win the day" crap speeches, LOTS of people died. And no, I do not have exact figures for the number of troops he killed with his idiotic rampages. I'll be sure to let you know if I find such. Hero-worship of this man is much like the worship of the myth of Davy Crocket; based purely on PR, nothing to do with reality, and those who love him would prefer to grip their illusions.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/George-Patton
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/George Patton
http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/g/george-patton.html
http://www.informationgenius.com/encyclopedia/g/ge/george_patton.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Could you stop the personal attacks already.
Your view of Patton is your own business. If youre frustrated by people that worship him, don't take it out on me. It borders a lack of insight even Patton cannot be accused of
 
  • #34
Adam said:
Odd that the two most sourceless and vehemently ignorant posters (one of whom admits to being unwilling to read links and long posts of information provided by others) would ask for such from others.

Well, that did it. I won't be reading this either.
Where is our moderator?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
65K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K