Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm really looking forward to hearing about Patton.
GENERAL Patton------now you know it all ---or almost all
of it-------
I read Patton's book "The War As I Knew It" many years ago, I was hoping the author of the OP could add some perspective to Patton's recollections.Please go on, do continue......I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation waiting for your next stunning revelation.
Had I known that, I would have greased the seat.
Are you going to start in with that sexual stuff again?
aw gee-----you one-upped me........ my retort was going to
be----"hey---no action below the waist"
So how about that Gen. Patton anyway........quite a guy huh. I wonder when we get to that part of the discussion?
This thread began with the erroneous "George Patton was pretty irrelevant politically."
General Patton Speaks With God Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let's examine why Patton's politics ran counter to those of Franklin Roosevelt....
9. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.
" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”.
Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler. It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:
“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”
Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day
The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was enfuriated....and FDR couldn't have that!
10. Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
Had Patton been a subject of Stalin's...one can guess what would have become of him.
But Roosevelt's version of the Kremlin has it's hands tied, both because Patton was non replaceable on the battlefield, but because America was not Russia.
This explanation applies:
" The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, ...."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."
If you ask nicely, I may construct an OP on what could have happened otherwise.
c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.
Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
Here ya go. Why do you think and claim Japan had designs for Siberia? What did Siberia or Russia have that Japan was in great need of?
Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.Japan did not have shortages of those resources in Dec. of 1941. There was another resource that they were in fact desperate for, but is was not available from Russian Siberia. Nor was there a sleeping giant building a massive Navy to confront the island nation of Japan to the north.c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.
Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
Here ya go. Why do you think and claim Japan had designs for Siberia? What did Siberia or Russia have that Japan was in great need of?
Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.
An additional aspect of this absurdity,
how on earth would Truman have gotten a declaration of war against the Soviets out of the US Congress in 1945?
The point is, PC's analysis is nonsense. She has no idea of what went on between the Soviets and Japan in 1939. She puts forth a ridiculous argument that Japan should have restarted that war with Russia in 1941, ignores Japans need for oil that was only available in the south and required attacking western countries who controlled the sources of the oil. She of course also ignores the Navy FDR was building that posed a genuine threat to Japan. That admission would give credit to FDR and his ability to take New Deal programs and use them to quietly prepare for war with Japan and Germany by modernizing the Navy and Army Air Force.c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.
Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
Here ya go. Why do you think and claim Japan had designs for Siberia? What did Siberia or Russia have that Japan was in great need of?
Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.Japan did not have shortages of those resources in Dec. of 1941. There was another resource that they were in fact desperate for, but is was not available from Russian Siberia. Nor was there a sleeping giant building a massive Navy to confront the island nation of Japan to the north.c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.
Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
Here ya go. Why do you think and claim Japan had designs for Siberia? What did Siberia or Russia have that Japan was in great need of?
Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.
After suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Soviets in 1939 on the Manchurian border the Japanese made a strategic decision to expand their empire into the Pacific rather than take over the eastern regions of Siberia, which had long been a foreign policy goal for the Japanese.
The point is, PC's analysis is nonsense. She has no idea of what went on between the Soviets and Japan in 1939. She puts forth a ridiculous argument that Japan should have restarted that war with Russia in 1941, ignores Japans need for oil that was only available in the south and required attacking western countries who controlled the sources of the oil. She of course also ignores the Navy FDR was building that posed a genuine threat to Japan. That admission would give credit to FDR and his ability to take New Deal programs and use them to quietly prepare for war with Japan and Germany by modernizing the Navy and Army Air Force.c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.
Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
Here ya go. Why do you think and claim Japan had designs for Siberia? What did Siberia or Russia have that Japan was in great need of?
Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.Japan did not have shortages of those resources in Dec. of 1941. There was another resource that they were in fact desperate for, but is was not available from Russian Siberia. Nor was there a sleeping giant building a massive Navy to confront the island nation of Japan to the north.c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.
Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
Here ya go. Why do you think and claim Japan had designs for Siberia? What did Siberia or Russia have that Japan was in great need of?
Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.
After suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Soviets in 1939 on the Manchurian border the Japanese made a strategic decision to expand their empire into the Pacific rather than take over the eastern regions of Siberia, which had long been a foreign policy goal for the Japanese.
That's actually a good answer! And had we fought the Germans in 1940, that would have been effective.
Also, Rommel had suggested that instead of concentrating on building tanks, the Germans should have build more towed 8.8 to fight the Russians who had the habit of charging head long into kill zones
By the time we actually crossed swords with them in 1943 we needed the 76 to pen the Mark IV's and the 90mm to have a chance at a Tiger (in service since 1942). I always thought it was negligent that we sent the Shermans into combat knowing they were under-armored and outgunned. It was Patton and the armor commanders that made the difference
Fortunate that we didn't go to war with the Soviets as Patton suggested at the time.....the T-34 was superior to the Sherman and the IS-2 would have defeated the new Pershing tanks.
Irrelevant.
US Army Air power would have turned Soviet armor into target practice. They would have cried "unfair" all day and night, but they'd still be smoking heaps on the battlefield
What do you suppose the Soviet Air Force would be doing? They defeated the other half of the Luftwaffe.
Soviet Air Force? They'd be doing next to nothing.
No, they were a significant risk. The IL2M is a dangerous cookie and towards the end they had the LA5FN which was a good aircraft. The difference though is the Soviet military would be fighting against pilots as good as the Germans, but with none of the supply problems.
We can debate back and forth, but the real issue was that FDR was a sock puppet for Stalin and allowed the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people to Soviet Communism.
That is nonsensical and you know it.
It's the truth. FDR was all but a Soviet satellite. The entire prosecution of the war including setting the USA on a collision course with Japan was all orchestrated by Stalin and executed by his staff working at US State Department and the White House.
McCarthy warned us and instead of having scores of traitors on Death Row, we allowed the Soviet Spy network to continue to propagate and infiltrate academia, the media, the Democrat Party and the RINOs
Get off the drugs.
Stay ignorant. On you it looks goodPresenting an accurate history in a PoliticalChic thread is like mixing water and oil. Seems out of place and confusing. They are just two things that seem to be opposite. I was attempting to get a specific response from PC with my question. You kind of stepped on my ambush.The point is, PC's analysis is nonsense. She has no idea of what went on between the Soviets and Japan in 1939. She puts forth a ridiculous argument that Japan should have restarted that war with Russia in 1941, ignores Japans need for oil that was only available in the south and required attacking western countries who controlled the sources of the oil. She of course also ignores the Navy FDR was building that posed a genuine threat to Japan. That admission would give credit to FDR and his ability to take New Deal programs and use them to quietly prepare for war with Japan and Germany by modernizing the Navy and Army Air Force.Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.Japan did not have shortages of those resources in Dec. of 1941. There was another resource that they were in fact desperate for, but is was not available from Russian Siberia. Nor was there a sleeping giant building a massive Navy to confront the island nation of Japan to the north.Same reasons they invaded Manchuria, coal, iron, slave labor, etc.
After suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Soviets in 1939 on the Manchurian border the Japanese made a strategic decision to expand their empire into the Pacific rather than take over the eastern regions of Siberia, which had long been a foreign policy goal for the Japanese.
I never said I agreed with her premise. I'm merely trying to present an accurate history....taking over parts of Siberia had been a goal for the Japanese since their victory over the Russians in 1905.
Fortunate that we didn't go to war with the Soviets as Patton suggested at the time.....the T-34 was superior to the Sherman and the IS-2 would have defeated the new Pershing tanks.
Irrelevant.
US Army Air power would have turned Soviet armor into target practice. They would have cried "unfair" all day and night, but they'd still be smoking heaps on the battlefield
What do you suppose the Soviet Air Force would be doing? They defeated the other half of the Luftwaffe.
Soviet Air Force? They'd be doing next to nothing.
No, they were a significant risk. The IL2M is a dangerous cookie and towards the end they had the LA5FN which was a good aircraft. The difference though is the Soviet military would be fighting against pilots as good as the Germans, but with none of the supply problems.
I believe we discovered some good Soviet pilots over Korea. Had this imaginary scenario played out it would have been an epic air campaign between two completely different philosophies of air power. The US had devoted considerable resources into developing strategic air power (bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan), and naval air power as well. While the effectiveness of our tactical air forces was certainly unsurpassed, the Soviets were also very experienced in the use of aircraft supporting ground forces. The Soviets had a number of good aircraft designs, it would be hard to argue that the P-51 and P-47 were better aircraft than Yak-9 or La-5.
GENERAL Patton------now you know it all ---or almost all
of it-------
I read Patton's book "The War As I Knew It" many years ago, I was hoping the author of the OP could add some perspective to Patton's recollections.Had I known that, I would have greased the seat.
Are you going to start in with that sexual stuff again?
aw gee-----you one-upped me........ my retort was going to
be----"hey---no action below the waist"
So how about that Gen. Patton anyway........quite a guy huh. I wonder when we get to that part of the discussion?
This thread began with the erroneous "George Patton was pretty irrelevant politically."
General Patton Speaks With God Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let's examine why Patton's politics ran counter to those of Franklin Roosevelt....
9. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.
" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”.
Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler. It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:
“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”
Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day
The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was enfuriated....and FDR couldn't have that!
10. Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
Had Patton been a subject of Stalin's...one can guess what would have become of him.
But Roosevelt's version of the Kremlin has it's hands tied, both because Patton was non replaceable on the battlefield, but because America was not Russia.
This explanation applies:
" The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, ...."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."
If you ask nicely, I may construct an OP on what could have happened otherwise.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician. His own big mouth is what usually got him into trouble, he questioned the decisions of his superior officers on a regular basis. He wasn't always right, his plan for the invasion of Sicily being case in point.
I read Patton's book "The War As I Knew It" many years ago, I was hoping the author of the OP could add some perspective to Patton's recollections.Are you going to start in with that sexual stuff again?
aw gee-----you one-upped me........ my retort was going to
be----"hey---no action below the waist"
So how about that Gen. Patton anyway........quite a guy huh. I wonder when we get to that part of the discussion?
This thread began with the erroneous "George Patton was pretty irrelevant politically."
General Patton Speaks With God Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let's examine why Patton's politics ran counter to those of Franklin Roosevelt....
9. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.
" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”.
Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler. It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:
“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”
Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day
The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was enfuriated....and FDR couldn't have that!
10. Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
Had Patton been a subject of Stalin's...one can guess what would have become of him.
But Roosevelt's version of the Kremlin has it's hands tied, both because Patton was non replaceable on the battlefield, but because America was not Russia.
This explanation applies:
" The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, ...."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."
If you ask nicely, I may construct an OP on what could have happened otherwise.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician. His own big mouth is what usually got him into trouble, he questioned the decisions of his superior officers on a regular basis. He wasn't always right, his plan for the invasion of Sicily being case in point.
You have a limited view of the meaning of politics.
pol·i·tics
ˈpäləˌtiks/
noun
- the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Irrelevant.
US Army Air power would have turned Soviet armor into target practice. They would have cried "unfair" all day and night, but they'd still be smoking heaps on the battlefield
What do you suppose the Soviet Air Force would be doing? They defeated the other half of the Luftwaffe.
Soviet Air Force? They'd be doing next to nothing.
No, they were a significant risk. The IL2M is a dangerous cookie and towards the end they had the LA5FN which was a good aircraft. The difference though is the Soviet military would be fighting against pilots as good as the Germans, but with none of the supply problems.
I believe we discovered some good Soviet pilots over Korea. Had this imaginary scenario played out it would have been an epic air campaign between two completely different philosophies of air power. The US had devoted considerable resources into developing strategic air power (bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan), and naval air power as well. While the effectiveness of our tactical air forces was certainly unsurpassed, the Soviets were also very experienced in the use of aircraft supporting ground forces. The Soviets had a number of good aircraft designs, it would be hard to argue that the P-51 and P-47 were better aircraft than Yak-9 or La-5.
Yes, I never claimed the Soviets had no good pilots. They had some extremely good ones. However, they had far more pilots who were average to poor in skill levels, added to the centralized mission set ups that removed initiative from them, and the fact that they relied on group tactics instead of individual tactics for the most part, equals a good advantage for pilots who are aggressive, well trained, and equally important, well supplied.
The Germans had "experten" who shot down hundreds of aircraft (two, Hartmann and Barkhorn, 653 between them!). Just imagine what would have happened if they had been able to keep them fully supplied.
aw gee-----you one-upped me........ my retort was going to
be----"hey---no action below the waist"
So how about that Gen. Patton anyway........quite a guy huh. I wonder when we get to that part of the discussion?
This thread began with the erroneous "George Patton was pretty irrelevant politically."
General Patton Speaks With God Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let's examine why Patton's politics ran counter to those of Franklin Roosevelt....
9. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.
" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”.
Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler. It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:
“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”
Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day
The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was enfuriated....and FDR couldn't have that!
10. Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
Had Patton been a subject of Stalin's...one can guess what would have become of him.
But Roosevelt's version of the Kremlin has it's hands tied, both because Patton was non replaceable on the battlefield, but because America was not Russia.
This explanation applies:
" The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, ...."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."
If you ask nicely, I may construct an OP on what could have happened otherwise.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician. His own big mouth is what usually got him into trouble, he questioned the decisions of his superior officers on a regular basis. He wasn't always right, his plan for the invasion of Sicily being case in point.
You have a limited view of the meaning of politics.
pol·i·tics
ˈpäləˌtiks/
noun
- the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with being commander of the 3rd Army.
So how about that Gen. Patton anyway........quite a guy huh. I wonder when we get to that part of the discussion?
This thread began with the erroneous "George Patton was pretty irrelevant politically."
General Patton Speaks With God Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let's examine why Patton's politics ran counter to those of Franklin Roosevelt....
9. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.
" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”.
Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler. It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:
“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”
Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day
The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was enfuriated....and FDR couldn't have that!
10. Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
Had Patton been a subject of Stalin's...one can guess what would have become of him.
But Roosevelt's version of the Kremlin has it's hands tied, both because Patton was non replaceable on the battlefield, but because America was not Russia.
This explanation applies:
" The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, ...."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."
If you ask nicely, I may construct an OP on what could have happened otherwise.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician. His own big mouth is what usually got him into trouble, he questioned the decisions of his superior officers on a regular basis. He wasn't always right, his plan for the invasion of Sicily being case in point.
You have a limited view of the meaning of politics.
pol·i·tics
ˈpäləˌtiks/
noun
- the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with being commander of the 3rd Army.
But it does show the fallacy in your statement "Patton was a soldier, not a politician."
Stalin and FDR saw him as a political threat.
I may post a thread on the result thereof.....if you ask nicely and promise to take notes.
What do you suppose the Soviet Air Force would be doing? They defeated the other half of the Luftwaffe.
Soviet Air Force? They'd be doing next to nothing.
No, they were a significant risk. The IL2M is a dangerous cookie and towards the end they had the LA5FN which was a good aircraft. The difference though is the Soviet military would be fighting against pilots as good as the Germans, but with none of the supply problems.
I believe we discovered some good Soviet pilots over Korea. Had this imaginary scenario played out it would have been an epic air campaign between two completely different philosophies of air power. The US had devoted considerable resources into developing strategic air power (bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan), and naval air power as well. While the effectiveness of our tactical air forces was certainly unsurpassed, the Soviets were also very experienced in the use of aircraft supporting ground forces. The Soviets had a number of good aircraft designs, it would be hard to argue that the P-51 and P-47 were better aircraft than Yak-9 or La-5.
Yes, I never claimed the Soviets had no good pilots. They had some extremely good ones. However, they had far more pilots who were average to poor in skill levels, added to the centralized mission set ups that removed initiative from them, and the fact that they relied on group tactics instead of individual tactics for the most part, equals a good advantage for pilots who are aggressive, well trained, and equally important, well supplied.
The Germans had "experten" who shot down hundreds of aircraft (two, Hartmann and Barkhorn, 653 between them!). Just imagine what would have happened if they had been able to keep them fully supplied.
Most of the victories in those high scores were achieved before 1944 against inferior aircraft flown by pilots trained for simple tactics Both air combat tactics and the quality of aircraft improved greatly over time.
Soviet Air Force? They'd be doing next to nothing.
No, they were a significant risk. The IL2M is a dangerous cookie and towards the end they had the LA5FN which was a good aircraft. The difference though is the Soviet military would be fighting against pilots as good as the Germans, but with none of the supply problems.
I believe we discovered some good Soviet pilots over Korea. Had this imaginary scenario played out it would have been an epic air campaign between two completely different philosophies of air power. The US had devoted considerable resources into developing strategic air power (bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan), and naval air power as well. While the effectiveness of our tactical air forces was certainly unsurpassed, the Soviets were also very experienced in the use of aircraft supporting ground forces. The Soviets had a number of good aircraft designs, it would be hard to argue that the P-51 and P-47 were better aircraft than Yak-9 or La-5.
Yes, I never claimed the Soviets had no good pilots. They had some extremely good ones. However, they had far more pilots who were average to poor in skill levels, added to the centralized mission set ups that removed initiative from them, and the fact that they relied on group tactics instead of individual tactics for the most part, equals a good advantage for pilots who are aggressive, well trained, and equally important, well supplied.
The Germans had "experten" who shot down hundreds of aircraft (two, Hartmann and Barkhorn, 653 between them!). Just imagine what would have happened if they had been able to keep them fully supplied.
Most of the victories in those high scores were achieved before 1944 against inferior aircraft flown by pilots trained for simple tactics Both air combat tactics and the quality of aircraft improved greatly over time.
The aircraft certainly did, but not the tactics. The experten were scoring in droves even after the better aircraft showed up. They were just that good. Below is Hartmanns list of victories and as you can see 1944 was a very good year for him....
No. Date Time A/C Type Unit Location / Comments
1
5.11.1942
12:05 Il-2 7./JG 52 44 793 at 400m
2
27.1.1943
11:30 MiG-1 7./JG 52 15 112: at 2.500m
3
9.2.1943
10:20 LaGG-3 7./JG 52 86 722: at 1.000m
4
10.2.1943
6:15 Boston 7./JG 52 86 671: at 3.200m
5
24.3.1943
13:00 Il-2 7./JG 52 86 712: at 20m
6
27.3.1943
11:50 I-16 7./JG 52 85 171: at 800m
7
15.4.1943
15:33 P-39 7./JG 52 85 192: at 200m
8
26.4.1943
11:35 R-5 7./JG 52 86 722: at 700m
9
28.4.1943
9:30 LaGG 7./JG 52 85 122: at 5.000m
10
30.4.1943
16:00 LaGG 7./JG 52 85 712: at 4.000m
11
30.4.1943
16:20 LaGG-3 7./JG 52 85 752: at 4.000m
12
7.5.1943
8:05 LaGG 7./JG 52 75 262: at 5.000m
13
7.5.1943
16:43 LaGG 7./JG 52 85 171: at 500m
14
11.5.1943
5:45 LaGG 7./JG 52 75 234: at 3.000m
15
11.5.1943
5:50 LaGG 7./JG 52 85 144: at 5.000m
16
15.5.1943
12:10 U-2 7./JG 52 86 544: tiefflug
17
23.5.1943
5:45 LaGG 7./JG 52 85 253: at 5.000m
18
5.7.1943
3:40 Il-2 m.H. 7./JG 52 61 663 at 300m
19
5.7.1943
7:10 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 151 at 1.500m
20
5.7.1943
14:00 IL-2 m.H. 7./JG 52 61 333 at 200m
21
5.7.1943
18:15 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 124 at 2.000m
22
7.7.1943
3:50 Il-2 7./JG 52 61 183: at 500m
23
7.7.1943
3:52 Il-2 7./JG 52 61 154: at 200m
24
7.7.1943
6:05 Il-2 7./JG 52 61 331: at 500m
25
7.7.1943
6:10 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 182: at 1.000m
26
7.7.1943
17:15 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 214: at 3.000m
27
7.7.1943
17:20 LaGG 7./JG 52 62 873: at 2.000m
28
7.7.1943
17:30 LaGG 7./JG 52 62 792: at 3.500m
29
8.7.1943
9:05 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 223: at 2.500m
30
8.7.1943
9:10 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 221: at 2.500m
31
8.7.1943
18:05 LaGG 7./JG 52 62 872: at 2.500m
32
8.7.1943
18:25 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 134: at 1.000m
33
9.7.1943
7:25 IL-2 m.H. 7./JG 52 61 272: at 500m
34
9.7.1943
9:10 LaGG 7./JG 52 62 871: at 2.000m
35
9.7.1943
9:20 LaGG 7./JG 52 62 844d: at 2.000m
36
10.7.1943
7:05 LaGG 7./JG 52 62 872: at 2.000m
37
11.7.1943
16:55 LaGG 7./JG 52 62 883: at 2.600m
38
15.7.1943
17:20 LaGG 7./JG 52 54 562: at 1.500m
39
16.7.1943
14:15 LaGG 7./JG 52 54 661: at 1.500m
40
17.7.1943
19:25 LaGG 7./JG 52 54 974: at 1.800m
41
31.7.1943
10:00 LaGG 7./JG 52 54 623: at 1.000m
42
31.7.1943
16:55 LaGG 7./JG 52 64 541: at 3.000m
43
1.8.1943
11:40 LaGG 7./JG 52 64 523 at 4.500m
44
1.8.1943
14:40 LaGG 7./JG 52 54 663 at 3.000m
45
1.8.1943
17:05 LaGG 7./JG 52 53 491 at 3.000m
46
1.8.1943
19:21 LaGG 7./JG 52 53 131 at 2.000m
47
1.8.1943
19:40 LaGG 7./JG 52 54 584 at 2.500m
48
3.8.1943
11:17 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 334 at 1.000m
49
3.8.1943
11:22 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 412 at 1.000m
50
3.8.1943
11:45 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 192 at 1.000m
51
3.8.1943
18:05 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 193 at 3.000m
52
4.8.1943
10:19 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 391 at 3.500m
53
4.8.1943
10:30 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 331 at 2.000m
54
4.8.1943
10:50 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 334 at 1.000m
55
4.8.1943
13:43 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 343 at 2.500m
56
4.8.1943
15:40 LaGG 7./JG 52 51 462 at 3.000m
57
5.8.1943
9:00 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 351 at 3.000m
58
5.8.1943
11:50 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 323 at 4.000m
59
5.8.1943
12:00 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 314 at 3.500m
60
5.8.1943
17:04 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 333 at 4.000m
61
5.8.1943
17:27 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 441 at 5.000m
62
6.8.1943
16:08 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 393 at 3.500m
63
7.8.1943
8:30 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 391 at 3.000m
64
7.8.1943
8:35 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 384 at 2.500m
65
7.8.1943
11:55 Pe-2 7./JG 52 61 561 at 4.000m
66
7.8.1943
12:00 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 551 at 3.500m
67
7.8.1943
12:20 Pe-2 7./JG 52 61 373 at 2.000m
68
8.8.1943
7:15 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 572 at 3.000m
69
8.8.1943
9:53 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 632 at 4.000m
70
8.8.1943
10:18 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 612 at 3.000m
71
8.8.1943
12:54 LaGG 7./JG 52 60 253 at 3.000m
72
9.8.1943
6:14 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 821: at 400m
73
9.8.1943
9:30 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 581: at 4.000m
74
9.8.1943
16:30 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 561: at 4.000m
75
9.8.1943
16:40 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 814: at 4.500m
76
12.8.1943
8:55 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 772: at 5.000m
77
15.8.1943
9:14 Pe-2 7./JG 52 60 214: at 4.500m
78
15.8.1943
18:10 LaGG 7./JG 52 70 762: at 3.000m
79
17.8.1943
5:20 LaGG 7./JG 52 70 841: at 4.500m
80
17.8.1943
12:30 P-39 7./JG 52 70 791: at 2.500m
81
17.8.1943
13:05 LaGG 7./JG 52 70 842: at 5.000m
82
17.8.1943
17:40 P-39 7./JG 52 70 871: at 3.500m
83
18.8.1943
10:00 LaGG 7./JG 52 60 193: at 3.000m
84
18.8.1943
12:45 LaGG 7./JG 52 61 792: at 3.000m
85
18.8.1943
12:55 LaGG 7./JG 52 60 134: at 2.000m
86
19.8.1943
10:35 LaGG 7./JG 52 88 263: at 5.000m
87
19.8.1943
10:50 LaGG 7./JG 52 98 132: at 3.500m
88
19.8.1943
16:25 P-39 7./JG 52 88 281: at 3.000m
89
20.8.1943
6:07 Il-2 7./JG 52 88 263: at 50m
90
20.8.1943
6:08 Il-2 7./JG 52 88 263: at 50m
91
15.9.1943
12:20 Yak-9 9./JG 52 68 314: at 2.000m
92
18.9.1943
7:35 LaGG 9./JG 52 69 563: at 4.000m
93
18.9.1943
10:30 LaGG-3 9./JG 52 68 391: at 4.000m
94
18.9.1943
13:55 LaGG 9./JG 52 68 392: at 5.000m
95
18.9.1943
13:55 LaGG 9./JG 52 68 332: at 4.000m
96
19.9.1943
14:40 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 6614: at 1.200m
97
19.9.1943
15:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 56 599: at 800m
98
20.9.1943
13:20 LaGG-3 9./JG 52 59 394: at 2.000m
99
20.9.1943
13:40 LaGG 9./JG 52 59 474: at 2.000m
100
20.9.1943
15:35 P-39 9./JG 52 58 682: at 6.000m
101
20.9.1943
15:50 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 334: at 2.000m
102
25.9.1943
7:55 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 532: at 3.000m
103
25.9.1943
12:43 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 831: at 5.000m
104
25.9.1943
16:35 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 611: at 4.000m
105
26.9.1943
6:55 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 691: at 5.000m
106
26.9.1943
7:05 P-39 9./JG 52 58 554: at 600m
107
26.9.1943
9:55 P-39 9./JG 52 58 592: at 6.000m
108
27.9.1943
11:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 611: at 4.600m
109
27.9.1943
11:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 643: at 3.000m
110
28.9.1943
16:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 641: at 2.000m
111
29.9.1943
6:56 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 644: at 4.000m
112
29.9.1943
8:55 P-39 9./JG 52 58 682: at 4.000m
113
30.9.1943
6:55 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 681: at 4.500m
114
30.9.1943
14:30 P-39 9./JG 52 58 732: at 2.500m
115
30.9.1943
16:40 P-39 9./JG 52 58 583: at 5.500m
116
1.10.1943
12:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 641 at 5.000m
117
1.10.1943
12:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 762 at 3.500m
118
2.10.1943
8:40 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 833 at 5.000m
119
2.10.1943
8:50 Pe-2 9./JG 52 58 762 at 6.500m
120
2.10.1943
11:40 P-39 9./JG 52 58 851 at 5.000m
121
2.10.1943
13:55 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 672 at 4.000m
122
3.10.1943
10:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 592: at 3.500m
123
3.10.1943
16:05 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 591 at 2.000m
124
4.10.1943
7:25 P-39 9./JG 52 58 614 at 5.000m
125
11.10.1943
13:40 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 124: at 2.000m
126
12.10.1943
7:00 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 134: at 1.500m
127
12.10.1943
7:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 241: at 2.000m
128
12.10.1943
7:35 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 211: at 1.000m
129
12.10.1943
15:00 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 161: at 1.000m
130
13.10.1943
10:35 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 181: at 3.000m
131
14.10.1943
8:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 184: at 4.000m
132
14.10.1943
8:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 151: at 3.500m
133
14.10.1943
15:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 153: at 3.000m
134
15.10.1943
8:59 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 153: at 4.000m
135
15.10.1943
9:05 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 154: at 4.000m
136
15.10.1943
11:50 LaGG 9./JG 52 58 181: at 4.000m
137
20.10.1943
7:15 P-39 9./JG 52 39 472: at 4.000m
138
20.10.1943
7:20 P-39 9./JG 52 39 393: at 3.500m
139
20.10.1943
14:42 P-39 9./JG 52 39 534: at 1.500m
140
21.10.1943
7:40 LaGG 9./JG 52 39 481: at 4.500m
141
24.10.1943
14:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 57 753: at 2.000m
142
24.10.1943
14:35 P-39 9./JG 52 58 534: at 3.500m
143
25.10.1943
10:00 Pe-2 9./JG 52 49 523: at 6.500m
144
25.10.1943
15:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 57 182: at 2.000m
145
26.10.1943
8:08 P-39 9./JG 52 57 181: at 4.000m
146
26.10.1943
8:15 P-39 9./JG 52 57 153: at 4.500m
147
29.10.1943
8:50 LaGG 9./JG 52 38 151: at 5.500m
148
29.10.1943
11:05 P-39 9./JG 52 29 499: at 2.000m
149
7.12.1943
13:46 LaGG 9./JG 52 SSE Dneprovka: 4.000m
150
13.12.1943
10:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 S Jsnigirevka: at 900m
151
15.12.1943
12:32 LaGG 9./JG 52 NW Chervonovershka: at 800m
152
15.12.1943
12:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 N Verblyuzhka: at 700m
153
15.12.1943
14:16 LaGG 9./JG 52 NNE Chervonovershka: at 900m
154
17.12.1943
14:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 E Novgorotka: at 5.000m
155
17.12.1943
14:20 P-39 9./JG 52 NE Novgorotka: at 4.000m
156
17.12.1943
14:24 P-39 9./JG 52 S Verblyuzhka: at 4.000m
157
20.12.1943
9:02 LaGG 9./JG 52 NE Verchniy: at 200m
158
20.12.1943
12:13 LaGG 9./JG 52 W Tomakovka: at 250m
159
20.12.1943
12:13 LaGG 9./JG 52 NW Verchniy: at 200m
160
3.1.1944
12:10 LaGG-3 9./JG 52 38 893 at 1.000m [Novo Krasnoye]
161
7.1.1944
14:20 LaGG-3 9./JG 52 29361 at 4.000m
162
7.1.1944
14:25 LaGG-3 9./JG 52 29344 at 3.000m
163
8.1.1944
14:15 P-39 9./JG 52 29371 at 3.500m
164
8.1.1944
14:20 P-39 9./JG 52 29352 at 3.000m
165
8.1.1944
14:30 P-39 9./JG 52 29552 at 4.000m
166
16.1.1944
10:15 P-39 9./JG 52 29 343 at 3.500m
167
16.1.1944
10:26 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 464 at 4.000m
168
16.1.1944
10:47 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 492 at 4.000m
169
17.1.1944
9:44 LaGG 9./JG 52 29 512 at 3.000m
170
17.1.1944
12:19 LaGG 9./JG 52 29 521 at 2.500m
171
17.1.1944
12:24 Pe-2 9./JG 52 19 492 at 1.000m
172
17.1.1944
14:06 LaGG 9./JG 52 29 341 at 4.000m
173
23.1.1944
11:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 29342 at 3.000m
174
23.1.1944
13:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 19262 at 1.000m
175
23.1.1944
13:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 19264 at 1.000m
176
23.1.1944
13:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 19293 at 1.000m
177
24.1.1944
10:25 LaGG-3 9./JG 52 19 262 at 2.000m
178
30.1.1944
10:05 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 274 at 400m
179
30.1.1944
10:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 283 at 300m
180
30.1.1944
12:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 241 at 4.000m
181
30.1.1944
12:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 243 at 3.000m
182
30.1.1944
14:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 261 at 2.000m
183
30.1.1944
14:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 432 at 2.300m
184
31.1.1944
11:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 241 at 2.000m
185
31.1.1944
11:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 132 at 1.200m
186
1.2.1944
8:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 284 at 800m
187
1.2.1944
10:00 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 162 at 2.500m
188
1.2.1944
10:05 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 241 at 2.000m
189
1.2.1944
12:00 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 124 at 1.500m
190
1.2.1944
12:02 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 134 at 1.000m
191
3.2.1944
13:40 LaGG 9./JG 52 19 152 at 400m
192
4.2.1944
11:40 P-39 9./JG 52 10 783 at 3.500m
193
26.2.1944
9:08 P-39 9./JG 52 29 381: at 3.000m
194
26.2.1944
9:16 P-39 9./JG 52 29 384: at 3.000m
195
26.2.1944
11:45 P-39 9./JG 52 29 524: at 4.000m
196
26.2.1944
11:48 P-39 9./JG 52 29 521: at 3.000m
197
26.2.1944
11:53 P-39 9./JG 52 29 514: at 3.000m
198
26.2.1944
11:58 P-39 9./JG 52 29 524: at 2.500m
199
26.2.1944
12:03 P-39 9./JG 52 29 524: at 2.000m
200
26.2.1944
14:40 P-39 9./JG 52 29 552: at 2.500m
201
26.2.1944
14:45 P-39 9./JG 52 29 531: at 3.000m
202
26.2.1944
14:50 P-39 9./JG 52 29 512: at 2.000m
203
23.4.1944
15:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 351: at 1.500m
204
24.4.1944
11:55 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 474: at 2.000m
205
24.4.1944
12:15 P-39 9./JG 52 35 472: at 5.000m
206
26.4.1944
14:15 P-39 9./JG 52 35 474: at 4.000m
207
26.4.1944
14:20 P-39 9./JG 52 35 481: at 4.000m
208
3.5.1944
15:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 273: at 2.000m
209
4.5.1944
16:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 424: at 3.500m
210
4.5.1944
17:35 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 424: at 5.000m
211
4.5.1944
17:50 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 214: at 2.500m
212
5.5.1944
8:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 421: at 3.000m
213
5.5.1944
10:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 85 614: at 2.000m
214
5.5.1944
10:48 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 612: at 2.000m
215
5.5.1944
10:54 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 532: at 1.500m
216
5.5.1944
14:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 274: at 1.500m
217
5.5.1944
14:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 423: at 4.500m
218
6.5.1944
10:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 442: at 2.500m
219
7.5.1944
9:22 P-39 9./JG 52 35 644: at 5.000m
220
7.5.1944
9:30 P-39 9./JG 52 35 641: at 5.000m
221
7.5.1944
9:40 P-39 9./JG 52 35 483: at 3.500m
222
8.5.1944
9:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 612: at 1.000m
223
8.5.1944
13:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 35 362: at 4.000m
224
20.5.1944
12:24 LaGG-5 9./JG 52 98 754: at 2.500m
225
20.5.1944
18:35 LaGG-5 9./JG 52 98 711: at 2.000m
226
29.5.1944
15:35 P-39 9./JG 52 78 764L tiefst.
227
30.5.1944
11:25 P-39 9./JG 52 78 644: at 3.500m
228
30.5.1944
14:38 P-39 9./JG 52 78 613: at 4.000m
229
31.5.1944
18:05 P-39 9./JG 52 78 647: at 4.000m
230
31.5.1944
18:08 P-39 9./JG 52 78 614: at 5.000m
231
31.5.1944
18:13 P-39 9./JG 52 78 733: at 3.500m
232
1.6.1944
11:31 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 677: at 200m
233
1.6.1944
11:32 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 813: at 2.000m
234
1.6.1944
14:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 648: at 2.000m
235
1.6.1944
14:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 673: at 1.000m
236
1.6.1944
14:32 P-39 9./JG 52 78 673: at 2.000m
237
1.6.1944
14:35 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 675: at 1.000m
238
2.6.1944
17:10 P-39 9./JG 52 78 685: at 4.000m
239
2.6.1944
17:15 P-39 9./JG 52 78 640: at 4.000m
240
3.6.1944
13:30 P-39 9./JG 52 78 825: at 4.000m
241
3.6.1944
13:33 P-39 9./JG 52 78 813: at 3.000m
242
3.6.1944
14:00 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 733: at 500m
243
3.6.1944
16:17 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 568: at 600m
244
4.6.1944
15:10 P-39 9./JG 52 78 733: at 1.500m
245
4.6.1944
15:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 595: at 200m
246
4.6.1944
17:13 P-39 9./JG 52 78 596: at 2.000m
247
4.6.1944
17:23 P-39 9./JG 52 78 591: at 2.500m
248
4.6.1944
17:53 P-39 9./JG 52 78 590: at 2.000m
249
4.6.1944
18:15 P-39 9./JG 52 78 565: at 2.000m
250
4.6.1944
18:18 P-39 9./JG 52 78 560: at 2.000m
251
5.6.1944
13:12 P-39 9./JG 52 25km NW Jasi: at 5.000m
252
5.6.1944
13:19 P-39 9./JG 52 5km W Jasi: at 5.000m
253
5.6.1944
15:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 582: at 3.500m
254
5.6.1944
17:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 722: at 100m
255
5.6.1944
18:07 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 562: at 2.500m
256
5.6.1944
18:35 P-39 9./JG 52 78 674: at 5.000m
257
5.6.1944
18:43 P-39 9./JG 52 78 583: at 4.000m
258
6.6.1944
15:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 598: at 600m
259
6.6.1944
15:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 78 591: at 1.000m
260
6.6.1944
19:15 P-39 9./JG 52 78 582: at 1.500m
261
6.6.1944
19:25 P-39 9./JG 52 78 569: at 1.000m
262
6.6.1944
19:35 P-39 9./JG 52 78 728: at 800m
263
12.6.1944
14:00 P-39 9./JG 52 78 862: at 1.500m
264
12.6.1944
14:05 P-39 9./JG 52 78 831: at 3.000m
265
24.6.1944
9:50 Mustang 9./JG 52 65 136: at 3.000m
266
27.6.1944
18:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 85 229: at 3.000m
267
27.6.1944
18:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 85 245: at 2.000m
268
1.7.1944
17:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 94 173: at 4.000m
269
1.7.1944
17:32 LaGG 9./JG 52 94 179: at 3.000m
270
15.8.1944
11:43 LaGG-5 9./JG 52 01 633 at 1.500m
271
15.8.1944
11:45 LaGG 9./JG 52 01 663 at 1.500m
272
17.8.1944
12:25 P-39 9./JG 52 11 267 at 3.000m
273
17.8.1944
12:30 P-39 9./JG 52 11 273 at 5.000m
274
17.8.1944
15:27 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 277 at 800m
275
18.8.1944
16:27 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 272 at 500m
276
20.8.1944
12:00 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 779 at 1.500m
277
20.8.1944
12:03 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 757 at 1.200m
278
20.8.1944
12:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 724 at 1.200m
279
22.8.1944
12:20 P-39 9./JG 52 11 274: at 3.000m
280
22.8.1944
12:30 P-39 9./JG 52 11 335: at 2.000m
281
22.8.1944
12:31 P-39 9./JG 52 11 339: at 2.000m
282
22.8.1944
15:17 P-39 9./JG 52 11 411: at 2.000m
283
22.8.1944
15:22 P-39 9./JG 52 11 271: at 1.500m
284
23.8.1944
14:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 411: at 1.000m
285
23.8.1944
14:18 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 413: at 1.200m
286
23.8.1944
14:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 278: at 1.000m
287
23.8.1944
17:10 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 363: at 1.500m
288
23.8.1944
17:12 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 333: at 1.500m
289
23.8.1944
17:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 412: at 1.200m
290
23.8.1944
17:17 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 421: at 1.000m
291
23.8.1944
17:30 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 444: at 3.500m
292
24.8.1944
13:15 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 417: at 1.500m
293
24.8.1944
13:18 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 416: at 2.000m
294
24.8.1944
13:19 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 421: at 1.200m
295
24.8.1944
13:25 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 427: at 1.500m
296
24.8.1944
13:27 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 419: at 1.000m
297
24.8.1944
13:40 P-39 9./JG 52 11 443: at 3.000m
298
24.8.1944
16:00 LaGG-5 9./JG 52 11 335: at 1.500m
299
24.8.1944
16:03 LaGG-5 9./JG 52 11 363: at 1.200m
300
24.8.1944
16:06 P-39 9./JG 52 11 447: at 1.200m
301
24.8.1944
16:10 P-39 9./JG 52 11 441: at 1.000m
302
24.8.1944
16:20 LaGG 9./JG 52 11 422: no height
303
25.8.1944
13:27 LaGG 9./JG 52 01 663: at 200m
304
27.8.1944
18:00 P-39 9./JG 52 11 353: at 2.500m
305
27.10.1944
10:16 Yak-9 4./JG 52 18 265: at 2.500m
306
31.10.1944
15:30 Yak-7 4./JG 52 98 799
307?
1.11.1944
14:35 LaGG-5 4./JG 52 98 836: at 2.500m
307?
7.11.1944
13:35 Yak-7 4./JG 52 98 563: at 1.000m
308
13.11.1944
14:10 Yak-9 4./JG 52 89 ---: at 5.000m
309
13.11.1944
14:15 Yak-9 4./JG 52 9866-: at 4.200m
310
13.11.1944
14:25 Yak-9 4./JG 52 0854-: at 4.000m
311
13.11.1944
14:30 Yak-9 4./JG 52 98 637: at 4.000m
312
14.11.1944
11:35 LaGG-5 4./JG 52 98 494: at 2.000m
313
14.11.1944
11:45 LaGG-5 4./JG 52 08 471: at 800m
314
16.11.1944
8:45 Yak-9 4./JG 52 98 368: at 4.000m
315
16.11.1944
8:50 Yak-9 4./JG 52 98 487: at 1.000m
316
17.11.1944
14:25 Boston III 4./JG 52 98 584: at 2.000m
317
22.11.1944
11:40 Yak-9 4./JG 52 98 453: at 3.500m
318
22.11.1944
11:45 La-5 4./JG 52 98 452: at 4.500m
319
22.11.1944
- Il-2 4./JG 52 -
320
22.11.1944
- Il-2 4./JG 52 -
321
22.11.1944
- Il-2 4./JG 52 -
322
22.11.1944
- Yak-3 4./JG 52 -
323
23.11.1944
- Yak-3 4./JG 52 -
324
23.11.1944
- Yak-9 4./JG 52 -
325
23.11.1944
- Yak-9 4./JG 52 -
326
23.11.1944
- Yak-9 4./JG 52 -
327
23.11.1944
- Yak-9 4./JG 52 -
328
5.12.1944
13:20 LaGG-5 4./JG 52 98 419: at 1.200m
329
5.12.1944
13:25 LaGG-5 4./JG 52 98 278: at 1.000m
330
9.12.1944
13:10 Yak-9 4./JG 52 88 683: at 2.000m
331
9.12.1944
13:20 Yak-9 4./JG 52 88 694: at 2.000m
332
I.-II.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
333
I.-II.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
334
I.-II.1945
- Il-2 Stab I./JG 52 -
335
I.-II.1945
- Boston III Stab I./JG 52 or Mitchell
336
I.-II.1945
- Il-2 Stab I./JG 52 -
337
4.2.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 53 -
338
20.2.1945
- La-5 Stab I./JG 52 -
339
20.2.1945
- P-39 Stab I./JG 52 -
340
6.3.1945
- La-5 Stab I./JG 52 -
341
6.3.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
342
7.3.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
343
7.3.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
344
9.3.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
345
11.3.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
346
16.3.1945
- E/a Stab I./JG 52 -
347
??.3.1945
- Mustang Stab I./JG 52 -
348
10.4.1945
- B-26 Stab I./JG 52 -
349
11.4.1945
- Yak-3 Stab I./JG 52 -
350
17.4.1945
- Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 -
351
25.4.1945
- P-39 Stab I./JG 52 -
352
8.5.1945
8:30-9:20 Yak-9 Stab I./JG 52 Brün area: at 4000m
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hartmann.html
This thread began with the erroneous "George Patton was pretty irrelevant politically."
General Patton Speaks With God Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Let's examine why Patton's politics ran counter to those of Franklin Roosevelt....
9. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.
" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”.
Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler. It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:
“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”
Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day
The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was enfuriated....and FDR couldn't have that!
10. Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
Had Patton been a subject of Stalin's...one can guess what would have become of him.
But Roosevelt's version of the Kremlin has it's hands tied, both because Patton was non replaceable on the battlefield, but because America was not Russia.
This explanation applies:
" The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, ...."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."
If you ask nicely, I may construct an OP on what could have happened otherwise.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician. His own big mouth is what usually got him into trouble, he questioned the decisions of his superior officers on a regular basis. He wasn't always right, his plan for the invasion of Sicily being case in point.
You have a limited view of the meaning of politics.
pol·i·tics
ˈpäləˌtiks/
noun
- the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with being commander of the 3rd Army.
But it does show the fallacy in your statement "Patton was a soldier, not a politician."
Stalin and FDR saw him as a political threat.
I may post a thread on the result thereof.....if you ask nicely and promise to take notes.
A political threat? I had no idea Patton was running for office.
Patton was a soldier, not a politician. His own big mouth is what usually got him into trouble, he questioned the decisions of his superior officers on a regular basis. He wasn't always right, his plan for the invasion of Sicily being case in point.
You have a limited view of the meaning of politics.
pol·i·tics
ˈpäləˌtiks/
noun
- the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with being commander of the 3rd Army.
But it does show the fallacy in your statement "Patton was a soldier, not a politician."
Stalin and FDR saw him as a political threat.
I may post a thread on the result thereof.....if you ask nicely and promise to take notes.
A political threat? I had no idea Patton was running for office.
That's because you're a moron.
Did Monica Lewinsky run for office?
"Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as the President called Monica Lewinsky."
Liberties The Slander Strategy - New York Times
Carefully consider the word "destroy" when you consider the other political threat, George Patton.
