MovieChat Forums > Patton (1970) Discussion > How convenient they leave out the Metz d...

How convenient they leave out the Metz debacle.


How 'convenient' that this horrendously inaccurate 'biography' totally ignored Patton's near 3 month failure to take Metz as well as skipping over his overall near debacle in the Lorraine. All we get are one line about Metz and scenes about 'no gas, no gas' over and over again.

Here is what German commanders really thought about Patton in the Lorraine:

General Hermann Balck, who took command of Army Group G in the Lorraine in September 1944 said.

"I have never been in command of such irregularly assembled and ill-equipped troops. The fact that we have been able to straighten out the situation again…can only be attributed to the bad and hesi­tating command of the Americans.."

In 1979 Balck recalled:

"Within my zone, the Americans never once exploited a success. Often von Mellenthin, my chief of staff, and I would stand in front of the map and say, ‘Patton is helping us: he failed to exploit another success."

Balck called the American leadership under Patton "poor and timid".


Waffen SS Gruppenfuhrer Max Simon said the American tactics in the Lorraine were "cautious and systematic" and that "The tactics of the Americans were based on the idea of breaking down a wall by taking out one brick at a time," and that "Had you made such attacks on the eastern front, where our anti-tank guns were echeloned in depth, all your tanks would have been destroyed."

reply

It does rather overlook his failures somewhat. The film isn't IMO very good at all, it's actually a caricature of Patton- the cartoon version if you please- all rough and tough talking. The very image Patton wanted to portray perhaps but didn't quite manage in real life judging by the real footage of him speaking.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

Yes the film is the myth of Patton, not the true story of Patton, while Montgomery is either the pantomime villain or the comic foil in almost every scene regarding him. It's quite insulting actually.

reply

Of course it is, Hollywood is well-known for their historical revision favouring the USA, usually at the expense of one nation, Britain.

I choose to believe what my religion programs me to believe.

reply

The movie actually has this line:

Patton: Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man. If mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, then anything built by man can be overcome.

The movie then goes on to ignore Metz where, um, fixed fortifications stopped Patton's advance. Perhaps the Metz debacle should be a "monument to the stupidity" of Patton instead.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

You sad Brits have Patton envy.

And after promising to save Poland you lot happily gave about a third of it to its Soviet invaders and stabs the Poles in the back.

reply

My goodness, it's a damn movie, not a documentary or a biography. If you rely on movies for whole truth, you'll be, as you are, disappointed!

reply

The lack of allied supplies was due to the incompetence of Gen. HC Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._H._Lee Later due Monty not being able to clear the port of Antwerp. Patton had to organize his supply trains to get as much material as he could.
It's covered in this book: https://www.amazon.com/War-Between-Generals-Inside-Command/dp/031292920X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483992968&sr=1-1&keywords=the+war+between+the+generals

reply