INTER-WAR PERIOD
Patton left France for New York City on March 2, 1919. After the war, he was assigned to Camp Meade, Maryland, and reverted to his permanent rank of captain on June 30, 1920, though he was promoted to major again the next day. Patton was given temporary duty in Washington DC that year to serve on a committee writing a manual on tank operations. During this time he developed a belief that tanks should be used not as infantry support, but rather as an independent fighting force. Patton supported the M-1919 tank design created by J. Walter Christie, a project which was shelved due to financial considerations. While on duty in Washington DC, in 1919, Patton met Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would play an enormous role in Patton’s future career. During and following Patton’s assignment in Hawaii, he and Eisenhower corresponded frequently. Patton sent notes and assistance to help Eisenhower graduate from the General Staff College. With Christie, Eisenhower, and a handful of other officers, Patton pushed for more development of armored warfare in the interwar era. These thoughts resonated with Secretary of War Dwight Davis, but the limited military budget and prevalence of already-established Infantry and Cavalry branches meant the US would not develop its armored corps much until 1940.
On September 30, 1920, then-Major Patton relinquished command of the 304th Tank Brigade and was reassigned to Fort Myer as commander of the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry. Loathing duty as a peacetime staff officer, he spent much time writing technical papers and giving speeches on his combat experiences at the General Staff College. In July 1921, Patton became a member of the American Legion Tank Corps Post No. 19. Maj Patton led the rescue effort after a January 1922 blizzard destroyed the Knickerbocker Theatre in DC. From 1922 to mid-1923, he attended the Field Officer’s Course at the Cavalry School at Fort Riley, then he attended the Command and General Staff College from mid-1923 to mid-1924, graduating 25th out of 248. In August 1923, Patton saved several children from drowning when they fell off a yacht during a boating trip off Salem, Massachusetts. He was awarded the Silver Lifesaving Medal for this action. He was temporarily appointed to the General Staff Corps in Boston, Massachusetts, before being reassigned as G-1 and G-2 of the Hawaiian Division at Schofield Barracks in Honolulu in March 1925. Patton was made G-3 of the Hawaiian Division for several months, before being transferred in May 1927 to the Office of the Chief of Cavalry in Washington DC, where he began to develop the concepts of mechanized warfare. A short-lived experiment to merge infantry, cavalry, and artillery into a combined arms force was canceled after US Congress removed funding. Patton left this office in 1931, returned to Massachusetts, and attended the Army War College, becoming a ‘Distinguished Graduate’ in June 1932.
In July 1932, Maj Patton was executive officer of the 3rd Cavalry, which was ordered to Washington by Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur. Patton took command of the 600 troops of the 3rd Cavalry, and on July 28, MacArthur ordered Patton’s troops to advance on protesting veterans known as the ‘Bonus Army’ with tear gas and bayonets. Patton was dissatisfied with MacArthur’s conduct, as he recognized the legitimacy of the veterans’ complaints and had himself earlier refused to issue the order to employ armed force to disperse the veterans. Patton later stated that, though he found the duty ‘most distasteful’, he also felt that putting the marchers down prevented an insurrection and saved lives and property. He personally led the 3rd Cavalry down Pennsylvania Avenue, dispersing the protesters. Patton also encountered his former orderly, Joe Angelo, as one of the marchers and forcibly ordered him away, fearing such a meeting might make the headlines.
Patton was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the regular Army on March 1, 1934, and was transferred to the Hawaiian Division in early 1935 to serve as G-2. Patton followed the growing hostility and conquest aspirations of the militant Japanese leadership. He wrote a plan to intern the Japanese living in the islands in the event of an attack as a result of the atrocities carried out by Japanese soldiers on the Chinese in the Sino-Japanese war. In 1937, he wrote a paper with the title ‘Surprise’ which predicted, with what D’Este termed ‘chilling accuracy’, a surprise attack by the Japanese on Hawaii. Depressed at the lack of prospects for new conflict, Patton took to drinking heavily and allegedly began a brief affair with his 21-year-old niece by marriage, Jean Gordon. This supposed affair distressed his wife and nearly resulted in their separation. Patton’s attempts to win her back were said to be among the few instances in which he willingly showed remorse or submission.
Patton continued playing polo and sailing at this time. After sailing back to Los Angeles for extended leave in 1937, he was kicked by a horse and fractured his leg. Patton developed phlebitis from the injury, which nearly killed him. The incident almost forced Patton out of active service, but a six-month administrative assignment in the Academic Department at the Cavalry School at Fort Riley helped him to recover. Patton was promoted to colonel on July 24, 1938, and given command of the 5th Cavalry at Fort Clark, Texas, for six months, a post he relished, but he was reassigned to Fort Myer again in December as commander of the 3rd Cavalry. There, he met Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, who was so impressed with him that Marshall considered Patton a prime candidate for promotion to general. In peacetime, though, he would remain a colonel to remain eligible to command a regiment. Patton had a personal schooner named ‘When and If’. The schooner was designed by famous naval architect John G. Alden and built-in 1939. The schooner’s name comes from Patton saying he would sail it ‘when and if’ he returned from war. (Source mostly Wikipedia and Internet Researches – Doc Snafu)
Nobody ever defended anything successfully,
there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
proclaimed Gen George S. Patton. (1) This aggressive approach to warfare perfectly reflected Gen George S. Patton’s views on waging conflict. He was universally recognized as one of the most accomplished Generals of all time, not just during World War II. Patton was critical to the eventual success of the Allied forces in Europe. Throughout the war, Patton consistently defeated the German armies quite decisively, a feat that no Allied general could claim. What made Gen Patton so effective and such an exceptional warrior? To answer that question, it is necessary to examine Patton’s personality and leadership traits and to see how those characteristics directed his aggressive, and successful, battlefield tactics.
Patton exhibited a no-nonsense personality and a direct, usually unfiltered approach and communication style. He always spoke his mind, from the very beginning of his military career before he progressed to the role of General. (2) His interactions with other soldiers and civilians never changed whatever his rank. Beyond those personality traits, Patton’s battlefield strategies, especially his later adoption and mastery of his opponent’s tactic, the German Blitzkrieg, truly set Patton apart from other military leaders. The Battle of Argentan, the Falaise Gap as part of the Avranches Campaign, and the Battle of the Bulge provide evidence of two famous battles in which Patton successfully defeated the German armies by using his own interpretation of their Blitzkrieg strategy. Both these battles in which Patton defeated the Germans by adapting their own techniques against them served as influential battles that ultimately swayed the course of World War II.
While much of Patton’s success can be attributed to his intense study of battlefield tactics, he was also just naturally blessed with the traits of a hardened military leader. More than any other American soldier, General George S. Patton, Jr. epitomizes the American combat commander, explained Maj George A. Higgins. (3) The core of the American soldier’s identity consisted of being abrasive and strict yet always loyal to his brothers in arms, helpful traits for anyone who will be away from their home engaged in bloody fighting for years on end. As such, Patton is generally seen as a rude, aggressive man. He never offered excuses and did not care to hear excuses, regardless of whether they may have been legitimate. (4) He imposed strict rules on his troops. He swore constantly and spoke his mind. While these characteristics may not be desired in civilian life and ordinary American society, they are critical advantages in warfare. These aggressive, assertive personality traits underpin Patton’s ability to push his troops to their limits and ensure that they perform properly in battle. (5)
(1) Gifford, Jonathan. Taking The Offensive: General George Patton And … Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. (2) Province, Charles. George S. Patton. Web 28 Apr 2017. (3) Higgins, George A. Operational Tenets of Gens H. Guderian and G. S. Patton, Fort Leavenworth, CGSC. (4) Province, Charles. George S. Patton. Web 28 Apr 2017. (5) Province, Charles. George S. Patton. Web 28 Apr 2017
Like most military commanders, Patton had extensive rules and regulations for his soldiers. The extent to which Patton ruled over his troops, however, was much greater than most other generals. Patton instituted rules and regulations that went to appearances and grooming. It was the seeming absurdity and intrusiveness of Patton’s commands, however, that set him apart from other military leaders. For example, Gen Patton required all soldiers to be clean-shaven every day. (6) Even while in battle, when soldiers in many other battalions had perennial stubble, Patton’s soldiers were required to be clean-shaven and well-groomed. Patton demanded this level of detail in order to promote order within his army units, self-pride, and unit cohesion. Perhaps more importantly, the constant grooming rituals, shaving every morning, reminded Patton’s troops that daily, small routines were important and that they would have to be followed regardless of how minor they may have seemed. (7) If a soldier chose not to shave in the morning, Patton would fine the soldier and publically reprimand him. (8)
As a result, nearly every soldier in Patton’s army followed each and every one of Patton’s instructions no matter what those instructions may have been. Every soldier knew the consequences for disobeying orders would likely be worse than the original task that Patton had requested. This form of training, and getting soldiers to respond to even trivial orders, helped to develop a cohesive culture within Patton’s army. By instilling extreme discipline outside of the battlefield, Patton ensured that his teams of soldiers would have the discipline necessary to fight and defeat the Nazis in difficult battles. (9) Since his troops recognized that every order had a punishment if not followed, Patton created an army that was prepared to fight without hesitation.
Every soldier in Patton’s army wore a helmet and tie at all times, even in battle. While somewhat impractical, this rule reinforced Patton’s authority. Patton’s soldiers understood that he could dictate what they wore and did both in battle and outside of battle. There was a fine of $25 if a soldier was found not wearing a helmet or tie. (10) These fines confirmed the authoritarian culture that Patton believed was essential to victory. He created a system that disincentivized anyone from disobeying General Patton’s decrees. Through the use of trivial regulations that came with significant punishments if they were not followed, Patton’s soldiers learned to listen, obey and follow orders even under the extreme conditions of war. (11) This fear that Patton ingrained in his soldiers allowed Patton to push his troops to their limits. He knew, after all the training he had forced on them, that his soldiers would not disobey his demands.
Patton’s disproportionate punishments for disobeying even minor orders reflected his personality. Charles Province of the Patton Foundation describes Patton’s personality perfectly, writing that, His toughness, his profanity, his bluster and braggadocio were appurtenances that he assumed because he believed that only he-men (12) stimulated other men to fight. (13) As a leader, Patton fit the mold. He was a macho man. He never once showed fear or distress. He didn’t believe in showing any form of weakness to his enemy, or even his own troops. Since he was tasked with leading his troops, Gen Patton felt as though he should serve as the backbone for the unit, meaning that he would have to exude courage at all times. Patton admitted as much when he stated that, never ask any man to undergo risks which I, myself, do not incur. (14) He believed that to be a successful general he would have to demonstrate to his soldiers that he was not just someone who would give orders from the safety of a fortress, but rather, he would lead his army from the front lines.
(6) McKay, Brett. ‘The Obligation of Being an Officer By George Patton’. The Art of Manliness (citing Patton’s own writing). N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. (7) McKay, Brett. ‘The Obligation of Being an Officer By George Patton’. The Art of Manliness (citing Patton’s own writing). N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. (8) McKay, Brett. ‘The Obligation of Being an Officer By George Patton’. The Art of Manliness (citing Patton’s own writing). N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. (9) Province, Charles. ‘George S.Patton’. patton-mania.com. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. (10) Atkinson, Rick. The Day Of Battle: The War In Sicily And Italy, 1943-1944. 1st ed. [S.1]: Henry Holt and Co., 2007. Print. (11) McKay, Brett. ‘The Obligation of Being an Officer By George Patton’. The Art of Manliness (citing Patton’s own writing). N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. (12) Note: The language and aggressive attitude that Patton used would not be considered appropriate in modern warfare. During World War II, much more leeway was given to generals to use whatever means necessary to inspire their soldiers. Today, however, generals are constantly under strict scrutiny and the culture of warfare has drastically changed. Thus, a modern general trying to emulate Gen Patton’s personality would likely not achieve the same success as he did back in the mid-1940s. (13) Province, Charles. ‘George S.Patton’. patton-mania.com. Web. 28 Apr. 2017. (14) Rabieh, Linda R. Plato and The Virtue Of Courage. 1st ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print.
