Reply to a Comment

In response to my post "When is Disobedience a Moral Imperative", Gibbons writes:

I've read both the Patton Papers and the Rommel Papers. "Infantry Attacks" by Rommel, writing of his experiences in World War I, is one of my favorite books.

I understand the admiration of Rommel. But I don't understand your comment about Patton. There's a recent article suggesting Patton was killed because of his "dangerous" opinions about the Russians. If so then he's very much like Rommel, who lost his life because of his breaking with Hitler's program.

I'd be interested to read more about why you think Patton is the worst sort of human being.

I admit I made a statement of opinion as fact without providing sufficient evidence to support my position. I can say this from my understanding of and study of Patton. He was selfish, self-centered, profane, and more than likely a little bit unhinged mentally. Judged by the standards of his contemporaries it cannot be argued that he was not profane - although that may be only a relatively minor vice. I believe, and trust that in academic terms it could be easily proven, that Patton was motivated his entire professional career by what he thought was best for Patton. He all but bribed superiors that could do him favors and spared no opportunity to put his peers down to his own benefit. That is my opinion of the man and the reason I think so lowly of him.

He was successful on the field of battle because of his audacity, and the well-known fact that by the time America entered the war the German army was stripped of all its former advantages. I believe his audacity was born of his desire for Patton to personally succeed - he believed the myth in his mind. I certainly would not have wanted to serve in one of his units as a private soldier.

I agree with you that he had it right about the Russians. One might say that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I tend to believe that while he was certainly capable of seeing the Communist for what they were, he was probably also very happy to see another enemy that might offer him the opportunity to command in battle just a little longer. That is never the right or moral reason for a soldier to support war. Perhaps he was killed for these opinions but I am not sure his opinions on this matter arose from the most noble of places.

Make no mistake, as a child and young man I idolized Patton. As you see, my views have soured over the years.

Essentially as I compare and contrast Patton and Rommel it boils down to this. Rommel believed audacity saved the lives of his soldiers in the long run. Patton believe audacity won victories that might attach to his name.