I wouldn’t be surprised if Eric Margolis receive a call soon from ADL national director – praising him for hitting out at the ‘antisemite’ Gen. Patton.

On November 9, 2014 at the ‘Museum of Jewish Heritage’ in Manhattan, New York – the director of the Museum, Dr. David Marwell got booed by the audience for questioning Eric’s views on the impact of Gen. George Patton‘s anti-Semitism on the displaced person (DP) camps throughout Europe following the collapse of the Nazi regime.

The event was arranged to review Jew York Times reporter Eric Litchtblau’s new book, The Nazis Next Door: How America became a safe Heaven for Hitler’s men.

Gen George Patton, commander of the US Third Army and governor of a greater part of US occupied Germany is accused by the organized Jewry for slapping and berating two Jewish soldiers, Pvt. Charles H. Kuhl and Pvt. Paul Bennett in August 1943 in Sicily. Patton also called them cowards. Patton was ordered to apologize to the soldiers in public by the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Gen. David (Ike) Eisenhower, who is accused of being a crypto-Jew

Several writers have claimed that Gen. Patton was killed by Jews as part of Jewish vengeance for insulting Jewish soldiers.

Most of the Jews swarming over Germany immediately after the war came from Poland and Russia, and Patton found their personal habits shockingly uncivilized. Patton’s initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower’s insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part: “This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General. The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it.”

Bill O’Reilly, one of America’s top Muslim-haters in his recent book, Killing Patton, has claimed that Patton was murdered on the orders of Russian dictator Joseph Stalin.

https://rehmat1.com/2014/11/24/brawl-over-gen-patton-at-museum-of-jewish-heritage/

Churchill might have continued, “you will never know surrender until you trample Merkel’s Germany.”

Brave soldiers abound in war, but oftentimes it’s their leaders that ultimately get them killed.

Buddy, you must have been channeling Schickelgruber, whose spirit remains are still rumored to be whisping about the crude skull mug Stalin fashioned from his napalmed remains.

Patton was never at his best in a set piece battle-his forte was unrelenting pursuit. The initial Normandy campaign, in which he was not involved, generated heavy casualties for few gains–hedgerows proved very effective defenses. Patton took command of the 3rd Army at the time of the breakout at St. Lo and proved a very good commander for that type of action. The capture of the Metz fortress was a very different kind of operation, and logistical support was going elsewhere, which didn’t make it any easier.

One German WWII strength was the ability to form effective units very quickly out of a hodge-podge of retreating formations.

Other than Alexander Suvorov, nobody wins them all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov

Good history lesson. I googled the forts and though there is not much photographic evidence available, what is available – those steel/concrete, low profiled massive artillery turrets – are enough to chill the spine.

Too many commanders take it as a personal insult when an adversary doesn’t immediately capitulate. While those forts were a problem, the best tactic would have been to neutralize the artillery embrasures then surround, entrench and isolate the structures and move own, as was done with Dunkirk and some ports in Normandy. A huge mistake was for the British and Canadians to try and sweep the Germans from every part of the Netherlands. Many soldiers died needlessly. After the Scheldt estuary was cleared and secured the English and Canadians should have just contained the rest of the Netherlands, no need to battle the German army for every bit of land. Berlin was the objective. Once Berlin was taken the war was over, as events demonstrated.

Wouldn’t it have made sense for Patton to attack north or south (or both) of the forts? Just go around them and bypass them? Tanks and soldiers can move, forts cannot. I never understood why Paulus kept attacking into the ruins of Stalingrad instead of north/south/(both) of the city. Build up a section of open front along the Volga, pontoon bridge it, and just starve them out with the city surrounded and the Volga river traffic cut off. The frontal attack against a fortified position should have ended with Pickett’s charge.

>> I never understood why Paulus kept attacking into the ruins of Stalingrad instead of north/south/(both) of the city.

He did attack both North and South of the city. The Stalingrad battle ground encompassed a huge area. The German, along with the Romania and Italian armies were strung out both north and south of the city proper, hundreds of miles altogether, while the 4th Panzer Army was fighting its way to Baku. By the time the Red Army launched operation Uranus there were only isolated pockets of resistance left in the city proper, but Hitler was obsessed with clearing the entire city of any remaining Red Army soldiers and no provisions were made for a counterattack.

By Novermber 1942 the Wehrmacht was too exhausted to cross the Volga (even if that had been part of the strategic plan). That would have had to wait until 1943, if ever. Hitler’s declared intention was to stop at the Volga. Draw a line from Murmansnk in the North, connect with the Volga and ride the Volga down to Astrakhan. That was supposed to be the limits of Hitler’s Russian ambitions.

One wonders how Douglas MacArthur would have commanded in the ETO. MacArthur believed in the “hit ’em where they ain’t” school of strategy, bypassing enemy strongpoints wherever possible. (Specifically, how would MacArthur have commanded the U.S. Fifth Army instead of Mark Clark during the God-awful Italian campaign?)

Mr. Margolis once agan reminds us that the Russians won WWII in Europe. The US had zero to do with the result. The “Allied” invasion was purely about taking territory to use in the post war peace negotiation. Patton’s failure at Metz is just another example of how poor the US Army was in WWII.

Good summary of the campaign. The Volga represented a major obstacle. Crossing it in force, especially in two places was practically an amphibious assault, something with which the Wehrmacht had little experience and would probably have been beyond its capabilities by the summer of 1942. Attacking along the river into Stalingrad made more sense, but the fighting in the streets played to Russian, not German strengths. Paulus’s huge mistake was putting all of his strength nose to nose with the Russians and failing to maintain a mobile reserve to at least hold up any Russian counterattack. He trusted the Romanians, Hungarian and Italian allies to hold the flanks north and south of the city. Their motivation wasn’t the best: exactly, might such a soldier ask, does my presence on the Volga enhance the security of my country? And anti-tank defenses were pretty weak, even with highly-motivated defenders. Fundamentally, however, the Germans were seeking to occupy far too much territory with far too few troops.

Insofar as bypassing opposition as a general tactic goes, you always run the risk of sorties by the defenders who can disrupt lines of communication. If those sorties can be coordinated with attacks from the front, the encircling forces may find they’re the ones with the bigger problem.

Buddy, wash your mouth with ‘a bar of Fat Soap’ next time you dare to insult Joseph Stalin, who created the first Jewish state in 1934.

https://rehmat1.com/2010/06/13/birobidjan-the-first-jewish-state/

Actually Paulus DID NOT attack north and south of the city along and towards the Volga river bank. He exhausted his strength in frontal attacks into the ruins of the city. He lost the effective equivalent of 20 divisions even BEFORE he was encircled in November 1942.

I would. The ADL is never going to praise someone who says anything German soldiers did was “gallant.”

The Russians won the war in Europe, but the French and a few others have us to thank for not ending up People’s Republics afterwards.

I have read it suggested that Patton did not do very well when he hadn’t the 1st Infantry Division. Was it at the Metz battle ?

You’d have preferred one in Palestine? Rehmat, are you sure you’re not a Zionist Jew yourself?

Nonsense. The Soviet military did an outstanding job, but without the Allies they’d be speaking German in Hitlergrad right now. The Germans did a pretty good job against the Soviets at the beginning of the war and if they didn’t have to fight the Allies nothing could have stopped them.
As for Patton’s “failure” at Metz, he won in the end and the gallant stand by the German forces made no difference in the result of the war. Except maybe the Americans and Brits would have gotten further east and prevented the rapes of so many poor German women.

Really? Catch your breath, the US made no difference in the war in Europe except that with the belated invasion the US took some territory for itself. That territory became West Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Italy. If the US had done zero, Russia still would have won. The Russian Army was immense and very good, better than the Germans. The Germans had a bunch of gee wiz weapons, which ultimately made little difference.

“you will never know war until you fight Germans.”

Alas, Germans are their own worst enemies.

A great people, they go for really stupid stuff… like instigating WWII and now this craziness with Merkel and invasion.

Jeez.

Don’t these nuts ever stop?

Compared to any normal army the US Army was a significant fighting force. The Red Army and the Wehrmacht were not normal; they were on another level.

{Except maybe the Americans and Brits would have gotten further east and prevented the rapes of so many poor German women.}

Those poor, poor German women.
Just 3-4 years before 1944/45, those same women were cheering on their jackbooted men on their way to invade USSR and do what ?
Bring flowers to Russian women?.

What genocidal German invaders did to Russian women and civilians, is nothing compared to what Red Army troops did to German civilians. The reason German civilians were terrified of the Red Army’s advance towards Germany is they knew what their “men” had done to Russians and they knew there would be revenge. Collective punishment is wrong of course, but war is Hell. And Nazi Germany invaded USSR: when you start a war, you are responsible for all its consequences.

btw: Americans and Brits were not above burning 10s of 1000s of German civilians alive, including children, by deliberately firebombing civilian targets. Americans and Brits could not care less about German women.

btw2: German historian Miriam Gebhardt has estimated US and UK troops raped 100s of 1000s of German women. Of course US and UK immediately disputed it: you see, Red Army troops were brutes and American and British troops are always virtuous and perfect gentlemen. Right?

Arguably the American troops were worse behaved in Italy and France. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332670/American-WWII-GIs-dangerous-sex-crazed-rapists-French-feared-Germans-explosive-book-claims.html

Regarding Patton’s hyper-inflated reputation, this is a much worse mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Baum

Readers of Ernst v. Salomon’s “Der Fragebogen” will confirm that they did some raping in Germany as well.

Don’t you remember darling – I’m your Canadian cousin from your mother’s side!!

I don’t really care which warmongering POS would have “better” wasted our guys’ lives and our taxpayers’ earnings to kill, injure or displace millions of civilians in a war that was not our affair.

Yes, but Poland, the Baltics, and others have the US gov to “thank” for pushing the Germans out and enabling the Soviets to take control of their countries and their lives. Was it worth it?

Since American troops raped plenty of German women themselves, that’s not much consolation.

My (non-German) grandparents lived in Germany during and after the war. American soldiers raping German women was not commonplace at all. One of them did point a gun at and take a silver watch from one of my grandparents. It was their first experience with a “diverse” person.

Supposedly Americans were quite popular and German girls were promiscuous. But the girls weren’t getting raped.

Soviets were a lesser for Poles but not for the Baltic peoples.

So you believe that if a woman’s husband, boyfriend or brother commits a rape, it should be open season on that woman? Even some Soviet soldiers and officers disagreed with your asinine opinion and were wiling to go to the Gulag for trying to protect these women. Women as young as eight, and as old as eighty. It was the official policy of the Soviet high command that every woman should be raped, of course some Allied servicemen may have committed the crime of rape, but it was not sanctioned and would result in severe penalties, including a possible death sentence in the US Army, if they were caught.
The Soviet policy of systematic rape is a matter of historical record, your support of it makes you a despicable character.

{So you believe that if a woman’s husband, boyfriend or brother commits a rape, it should be open season on that woman? }

Read what I wrote: the women in question were cheering their men onward to invade Russia to commit mass rape and mass murder. Very different than simply being kin to a rapist.

Read what I wrote:
{Collective punishment is wrong of course, but war is Hell. And Nazi Germany invaded USSR: when you start a war, you are responsible for all its consequences.}
If you consider that “support” , it’s OK with me.

{It was the official policy of the Soviet high command that every woman should be raped,}
Kindly provide evidence that such a policy existed.

{of course some Allied servicemen may have committed the crime of rape,}
According to German historian Miriam Gebhardt US and UK troops raped 100s of 1000s of German women: that is far from ‘some’.

I also reproduce here the link that poster [Marcus] provided above:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332670/American-WWII-GIs-dangerous-sex-crazed-rapists-French-feared-Germans-explosive-book-claims.html
Read it: you might reconsider your firm, but bogus ‘some’ belief.

{.., your support of it makes you a despicable character.}
I may be a despicable character, but I don’t sugarcoat.

Finally:

Quite a number of German women were raped by Red Army troops – no doubt.
But they lived to tell about it. Yes?
Nazi Germans murdered about 10 million Soviet civilians, mostly Slavs.
Millions of Russian women were raped, then murdered.
What is worse in your worldview: being raped and living or being raped and murdered.

Typical Comintern propaganda lives on and on and on…

“[The Germans], A great people, they go for really stupid stuff… like instigating WWII …”

Jeez.

Doesn’t the mindless BS ever stop?

Negro GI’s were very popular both immediately after the war and since (probably still are). Look at the half-breeds on the US soccer team.

Ladislas Farago’s Last Days Of Patton opens with a very remarkable intro about Patton’s significance to WW II. The opening remarks in this book describe the reaction of utter surprise of German public in early 1970s when the movie Patton was released there. As Farago writes: Germans couldn’t understand why this American General warranted a movie. Zhukov? Yes! Rommel? Of course! Montgomery, possibly. But Patton? (c) This is very close to the text–it is from the top of my head. Events at Arracourt also bring some interesting questions about Patton;-)

By your logic any Russian woman who cheered her brother, boyfriend, or husband as they marched off to invade and brutalize the Baltic Sates, Finland, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe, deserved to suffer for that support. I strongly disagree with you.
Your apparent belief that Russia stood a chance against the German war machine without Allied support, particularly American support, is laughable, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, I suppose.

U.S. soldiers committed rape against U.S. military regulations, Red Army barbarians committed rape with full blind eye support of their local commanders and their Communist rulers. For this apples and oranges form the apt metaphor.

The reason – revenge – given by the Red Army and its rapist soldiers, for their massive regime of retributory rape, is understandable; yet that does not make Red Army soldiers’ crimes pardonable any more than the earlier crimes of the invading Wehrmacht are pardonable. Two wrongs do not make a right.

There are excellent statistical documentary sources of rapes committed by U.S. forces (inter al., John Ellis’s excellent book The Sharp End); all the sources concur in showing a low instance of U.S., British, and Metropolitan French troops’ commission of rape (the rate for black U.S. soldiers was much higher than that for white U.S. soldiers, and the rate for French North African troops was astronomical). There are abundant sources that document rape committed flagrantly and abundantly by Red Army troops, and that document that Red Army commanders initially turned a blind eye to their troops widespread rapine, until the Kremlin, having become fearful of international repercussions against Soviet postwar political gambits, forced the commanders to end their troops’ sexual rampaging.

As the war on the ETO Western Front approached its end and immediately postwar, German women, long bereft of their young men and destined for months and even for years to be without the great many of them held in Allied (especially in Soviet) POW compounds, quite often traded sex for favors from Western Allied invading and occupying troops. This did not constitute rape on the part of those Western Allied soldiers. Moreover, a considerable proportion of German women sought to enjoy the benefits of concubinage or marriage with Western Allied troops – vastly much less so with occupying Red Army troops.

Patton stalled at Metz because Ike’s diversion of the lion’s share of Allied supply to Montgomery’s 21st Army Group starved Patton’s Third Army of the ammunition and fuel necessary to envelop and bypass Metz. His lack of materiel necessary for sweeping envelopment forced Patton to attempt to take Metz by repeated, short-range frontal assaults on narrow fronts, assaults which did not require or consume vast amounts of ammuniton or fuel. The supply diversion to Montgomery also forced Patton to call in U.S. airpower to perform the large-scale bombardments of Metz that his own ammunition-starved Third Army artillery was unable to perform; and it must be recognized that the aerial bombardment technology of the time did not lend itself to tightly coordinated close support of ground assaults in the way that adequately supplied Third Army artillery could have closely supported ground attacks (the U.S. Army learned the dire, costly friendly-fire limits of close aerial bombardment ground assault support at the outset of the earlier Operation Cobra).

Had Patton the fuel and ammunition to have enveloped and bypassed Metz, German garrison sallies against the surrounding U.S. forces would have had to leave the shelter of the Metz forts and attack in the open, where U.S. artillery and airpower would have slaughtered the exposed Germans. Sallying Germans also lacked armored vehicles and fuel, so that any sallies they’d have launched would have been almost purely infantry attacks which the surrounding U.S. forces would have readily smashed.

Was Patton a supremely gifted field general. No. Of course not. He had serious flaws. His reputation stands almost entirely upon his emphasis on the offensive, yet it’s undermined by his flouting of the exigencies of logistics. Most of all, Patton’s reputation reflects his colorful nature: General Patton was no shrinking violet whose chief public virtue was backing into the limelight. Patton had the spirit, colorfulness, and singleminded “maintenance of the objective” drive of great military leaders, and, like Montgomery, Patton chafed and groused under Eisenhower’s wise coalition-binding insistence on Allied broad front advance.

It needs to be pointed out that there has rarely, if ever, been a uniformly successful or completely, all-round gifted military leader, as almost every one of them has suffered from human foibles and flaws, and others have been undercut by the madness or errors of their superiors, to which many a field general has been complaisant or reluctantly compliant (right through the recent Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns). Even the most reputable Red Army generals had grave flaws – chief among these being their carelessness in expenditure of their own troops’ lives, both in battle and in their enthusiastic application of draconian punitive, coercive measures behind the front, both in subservience to the callous, brutal ideology and ideological manipulation that held sway in Soviet Russia.

Patton enjoyed a greater level of air supremacy that the Russians did at the same time on the Eastern front. He also had less mobile forces arrayed against him . He commanded, like most American generals of his time, forces that excelled at barging thru already opened doors.

Had he tried his ‘dashing’ tactics on
the Eastern front, his columns would have had their flanks bashed in and would have been cut off and surrounded in short order

The bit of skull that the Russians have does not have the DNA of Hitler. The piece of skull the Russians do have is barely large enough to fit on the palm of a hand. You should really lay off the comic books and learn to read books that actually can teach you something.
Perhaps Putin can drink something out of your skull. Please consider donating yours.

Above I asked you to provide evidence for your claim:

[{It was the official policy of the Soviet high command that every woman should be raped,} Kindly provide evidence that such a policy existed.]

You have failed to do so.

Next:

{By your logic any Russian woman who cheered her brother, boyfriend, or husband as they marched off to invade and brutalize….}

Hitler and Nazi leadership were quite open in their public pronouncements that Slavs ought to be exterminated and their lands taken for Lebensraum and settled by the Master Race.
There are many, many videos and pics of 10s of 1,000s of Germans – including young women – lining up streets to cheer the jackbooted murderers on their way to invade East and murder Slavs.

Please provide similar vids and pics of Russian women lining up streets in support of their troops to ‘invade’ the places you listed. Also provide public pronouncements of Soviet/Russian leaders calling for extermination of peoples in the places you listed.

{Your apparent belief that Russia stood a chance….}
It is not a belief. The myth that USSR defeated Nazi Germany because of the little help US provided has been thoroughly debunked. You can compare the dates , timeline and the volume of help US provided with the timelines of the defeats of Nazi invaders in the East and see for yourself. By the time US started sending ‘help’, the Red Army had already broken the back of the Wehrmacht.

{….but everyone is entitled to their opinion, I suppose.}
Yes. And that includes you.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about, but that’s okay. Good luck.

“The myth that USSR defeated Nazi Germany because of the little help US provided has been thoroughly debunked.”

Where and how has this been debunked?

You may, of course, consider 400,000 + trucks, sending US currency printing plates, tens of thousands of machine tools, hundreds of thousands of tons of food stuffs, etc. etc. “little help”.

But your belief doesn’t make it so.

Further, if you believe that German women lined the streets to cheer Hitler for the invasion of the Soviet Union, you are clueless. HdC

Yes it was. Althought they may not have prospered under communism, their long term future looks a lot brighter as a result of being under Soviet hegemony, compared to Western Europe’s situation today which is as a result of being under American.

ERic has mentioned a number of times that the soviets destroyed the bulk of the Wehrmacht in wwII. Most of us familiar with Military history would acknowledge this. But that does not mean the western allies contributed nothing.
Why, for example didn’t the German have air cover or gasoline? Maybe because allied bombing against refining and cracking facilities had slowed supplies to a trickle? And perhaps because the Luftwaffe had to deploy the bulk of its fighters for “defense of the Reich” duties, where they took heavy losses from an overwhelming number of RAF and USAAF fighters ranged against them. By the d day landings most of the east front had been denuded from fighter cover as all of jG 3 and elements of JG 51, JG 54 and others had to be deployed to the west to counter the allied bombing offensive.
It is unfortunate that whenever a discussions like this comes up it always seems to degenerate into a black/white, either/or situation where facts go out the window.

I

{You really don’t know what you’re talking about, but that’s okay. Good luck.}

Right back at you.

{But your belief doesn’t make it so.}

Your belief does not make it so either.

{….you are clueless}

No, it is you who is clueless.
And since you are clueless, it would be a waste of my time to provide the links which factually debunk that myth.

But you can easily convince yourself, if you are inclined to do so.
When Allies landed at Normandy in 1944, Red Army was where?
How far was it from German borders?
Why didn’t Allies land in 1941, during the do-or-die Battle of Moscow?
Why didn’t the Allies land in 1942, during the epic Battle of Stalingrad?
Why didn’t the Allies land in 1943, during the epic Battle of Kursk?

It is not my belief: it is historical facts.

Attacking Metz was always stupid. It was part of Eisenhower’s huge strategic mistake of dispersing his forces and attacking weakly on a wide front. This was Eisenhower’s failure. (and Montgomery was right to point it out repeatedly at the time)

and Montgomery was right to point it out repeatedly at the time

Monty got his chance with Market Garden. We all know the outcome. Ike was correct in a sense that Allies faced not some Rommel Africa Corps but still fairly competent Wehrmacht, parts of which were lead by able commanders, some of them with major East Front experience–totally different circumstances.