From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleGeorge S. Patton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 11, 2016.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2013 Good article nomineeListed
March 3, 2013 WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
September 8, 2013 Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 11, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Antisemitic Views

It is not clear to me in this section whether he was talking about Jews as a race, or just the fact that the Jews were treated worse than others, and thus were in even poorer condition. Jokem ( talk) 07:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Really? This quote clearly shows that General Patton considered the Jews subhuman like the Nazis did, the only thing he disagreed with was the mass genocide of the Jews. In other quotes, he complains about the "semitic and communist influence in the American mainstream media" which "criticizes him and German society". There is also his pre-coldwar quote about Russians as "Asians = barbarians who doesn't value human life." Patton was a psychopath (judging by his treatment of a wounded American soldier whom he beat and wanted to shoot) and an ordinary ideological fascist of the time. But at the same time he was most talented american general of WW2. History is not always "good guys" vs "bad guys" like it on Hollywod, you see. TyronMcLannister ( talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yes, Really. Calling him a psychopath is POV. He had a temper and did not tolerate cowardice, this does not rise to the level of mental illness. Jokem ( talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
That was not so much about Jews as about all displaced persons found in German camps [1]. That was bad. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Thewolfchild ( talk · contribs) I am here. All literature on this subject, time period and particular quote (and dozens of others made by Patton specifically about DP Jews) make no debate on who he was referring to when he wrote these words in his diary. Taken out of context without proper sourcing and follow-up leaves the uninformed reader with the personal subjective to define "they" as they would wish to interpret. The NYTimes article does not even remotely refer to this quote (or anything else in the article) to "all" DPs but specifically and only "Jewish DPs". As does this article: [2] Richard Cohen: "If they (the Jewish DP) ...", and this: [3] Jewish Library - Eisenhower quote specifically about the Jewish DPs: "we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them ... One is led to wonder whether the German people, seeing this, are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy." The “military guard” for these Jewish DPs was Patton’s idea. [4] Spartacus Educational: "George Patton received a report written by Earl G. Harrison about the way the Jews in Germany were being treated by the US Army after the war. Patton wrote about the report in his diary on 15th September, 1945" (the very quote in question) Politico: "The orders from above—Eisenhower wanted him to confiscate the houses of wealthy Germans so Jewish survivors could live in them—embittered Patton." Patton wrote: “the displaced sons-of-bitches in the various camps are blooming like green trees,” he wrote a friend. He saw journalists’ criticism of his handling of the Jews and the return of Nazis to high official positions as a result of Jewish and Communist plots. While Eisenhower ordered him to stop “mollycoddling Nazis". Patton remarked that the camps had been clean and decent before the arrival of the Jewish “DPs” (displaced persons), who were “pissing and crapping all over the place.” Eisenhower told Patton to shut up, but he continued his diatribe, telling Eisenhower he planned to make a nearby German village “a concentration camp for some of these goddam Jews.”

Please provide sources that back the claim of the editors in questions who have stated only person opinions about the term "displaced persons" as being "all" in regards to this particular quote. History surrounding the impetus for Patton writing in his diary proves why he wrote the words and to whom he was referring. No source shows Patton referring to any other DP during this time with the same terminology or language as he does when he speaks of the Jewish DPs in letters, diaries and recorded personal conversations. In fact, he glorifies the Nazi prisoners and heralds them as heroes. All historical and expert sources confirm that Patton was clearly referring to Jewish DP. If the quote needs to be accompanied by further sources or addition content to better the understanding for readers, then this can be accomplished. But until an editor can provide reliable and clear sources equal in number that state Patton was not referring to Jewish DPs to those that back the claim that he was in this quote, then it must remain in the section.

The above discussion was / is highly subjective and personal in opinion not relating to this subject (mental illness, pre-cold war). This discussion - as you directed me to via bold reversion - is not a consensus. The fact that the quotes that stand in section currently directly relating to "Patton [referencing the] Jewish survivors in displaced persons camps which he oversaw" proves what his active duty was at the time and who he was referring to. Maineartists ( talk) 14:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Couple few things... I did not "direct you to this discussion", just the talk page in general, as BRD suggests you should've started a dicussion instead of reverting that edit again. But if you would rather tack on your comments to this thread, so be it. As for your comments, they are rather lengthy and you didn't provide a tl;dr version, so it'll take me a bit to digest and respond. Meanwhile, the edit you reverted was first added by Harry Sibelius and then first reverted by Hohum before you or I arrived on the scene, so they should be pinged and given an opportunity to take part here. And so with that... we'll go from there. Ttys - wolf 17:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a fuller version of the quote from his diary, commenting on a report written by Earl G. Harrison about the way the Jews in Germany were being treated by the US Army after the war

One of the chief complaints is that the DP (Displaced Person) are kept in camps under guard. Of course Harrison is ignorant of the fact that if they were not kept under guard they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts and should eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged.

The brilliant Mr. Harrison further objected to the sanitary conditions. Again being ignorant of the fact that we frequently have to use force in order to prevent the inmates - Germans, Jews and other people - from defecating on the floor when ample facilities are provided outside.

—  https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWpatton.htm
The second phrase suggests he is lumping all DP's together and not singling out Jews for that comment.
I believe this later quote from the same diary entry is far more damning of him though, and is quite specific:

Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals.

However, the "lower than animals phrase" is already used in the section. It seems redundant to use two quotes from the same short diary entry, especially when the existing entry in the article covers his opinion emphatically, while the one recently reverted is one open to question.
( Hohum @) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
As I was not the OP nor the editor that reverted him, I addressed the editor who reverted me (without any history summary, by the way, except WP: BLD and a directive to go to the Talk Page). If what you say is correct, then Hohum should have brought the discussion here. I provided more than an adequate history summary (TL:DR) to warrant my revert. That being said, I tacked it onto this discussion because your initial summary directive was lacking in specifics, to say the least. So "going to the Talk Page" and seeing a section on Anti-semitic views and a discussion on DPs; I gathered this was your intent. My apologies if you were merely telling me where to go in general. Regardless, it is unproductive to point out "should haves" when the topic at hand is the above discussion. Lengthy or not, if my summary was not enough to warrant a reversion, then it stands to reason sources with extracted quotes to save time will have to suffice. Let us proceed and not divert from the task at hand. Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 17:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Maineartists ( talk) 17:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This seems a clear case of why primary sources are a problem. Should we not find a good secondary source that includes the context? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jwy: There are plenty of secondary sources. See above. @ Hohum ( talk · contribs) If there is such a debate as to whether or not Patton was specifically generalizing all DPs in this specific quote, even though related Patton correspondences link exact verbiage to his speech on Jewish DPs solely, then we should provide separate supporting sources to back the claim that Patton spoke derogatory of other DPs at this time (Nazi prisoners, Jewish supporters) separate from what he said specifically about Jewish DPs. It is difficult to know from a personal editorial standpoint who Patton is talking about at specific times in his writings. Here he is speaking of all DPs: "gain being ignorant of the fact that we frequently have to use force in order to prevent the inmates - Germans, Jews and other people - from defecating on the floor when ample facilities are provided outside." But here he is specifically talking about Jewish DPs: "the camps had been clean and decent before the arrival of the Jewish DPs who were “pissing and crapping all over the place.” Likewise, Patton did not say such quotes for all DPs: “the displaced sons-of-bitches in the various camps are blooming like green trees" much like the original quote: "they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts", but specifically for Jewish DPs. But I am not allowed to make that connection as personal opinion. It must be backed by reliable secondary sources. When experts and historians in the field specifically draw definitive conclusions that Patton was referring to Jewish DP, then there can be no debate. However, I'm willing to stop the splitting hairs and work for the betterment of the section. I do feel there is more to be said on this topic. If you feel there is too much ambiguity about this particular DP reference, then there is much more that Patton said and wrote about the Jews during this time that was not in his diary. Am I correct that your only objection was that of redundancy within the same source and not of an expansion on the section as a whole? Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
My position is that using unambiguous quotes supported by reliable secondary sources conveys information the most clearly. Also, yes, using multiple fragments from the same couple of paragraphs of his diary to restate the same information is redundant, and opens up potential accusations of cherrypicking repeatedly from one "event".
Additionally, the best reliable sources would be from educators, historians, etc. Not journalists. ( Hohum @) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi, I'm the one who added the following: "If they were not kept under guard, they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts, and would eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged."
When it was reverted by @ Hohum, his excuse was, "This is a comment about all displaced persons, which isn't only Jews, and it's unclear whether it's antisemitic, or an attempt to prevent reprisals and deaths."
I actually agree that the quote may not specifically refer to Jews. If he is indeed talking about DPs generally, and not Jews specifically, then I can see your point in suggesting that it does not belong under "Antisemitism". When I added the quote, I believed that it added fuller context as to why Patton made those anti-Jewish remarks, as he believed they would become a danger to civilians if they were to escape.
Where I would take serious issue is your remark that it's unclear whether Patton's desire was "antisemitic" or "an attempt to prevent reprisals and deaths." I do not see why there has to be dichotomy between the two. It's like asking whether someone really dislikes Woody Allen's films, or if they're just antisemitic. Sometimes, the answer is both.
What I do think would be an incredibly useful addition to the "Antisemitism" section, whether my contribution is kept or not, are dates for Patton's antisemitic journal entries. This is especially important, as Patton had remarked in Spring of 1945 on his visit to the Ohrdruf concentration camp on the brutality of the Germans towards their prisoners (in a letter to Eisenhauer, not yet included in this article.) Making clear whether Patton's antisemitic remarks regarding Jewish prisoners preceded or anteceded his visit to Ohrdruf is very important to understanding his thinking. Is it not incredibly valuable to know whether Patton first visited the concentration camps (detailed in this article), decrying the conditions there in a letter to Eisenhauer, (not yet in this article), but later came to blame the conditions in the camps on the prisoners themselves (also not yet in this article), or whether this happened in the reverse order?
I agree that if the quote regarding DPs is not in fact about Jews (though I believe it is, if not specifically and exclusively) it probably does not belong in the antisemitism section, though I think the remark does add value to the article by putting into context Patton's opinions regarding Jews. After all, the quotes used to illustrate Patton's antisemitism in this article are entirely quotes regarding Jews in concentration camps, and not Jews of any other kind. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 09:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
My 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply below still applies. Your logic above might be correct, but it is original research - unless it is cited by non-primary, reliable resource(s). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 16:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, I believe the source I used when I added the quote was a secondary source: a Washington Post article by a Jewish author commenting on Patton's diary entries, and making the assumption that the "Displaced Persons" referred to in the primary-source (Patton's diary) were Jews. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 06:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
My point about the dates is simply that the dates of Patton's letters and diary entries have been very difficult for me to find, and I think that the dates would be easier to find if I had the primary-source (the diaries). Harry Sibelius ( talk) 07:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Hohum@ Jwy@ MaineartistsSo, shall I revert the edit to include my addition of the quote on displaced persons, portraying them as Jews, now that it is clear that my source was a secondary-source which provided commentary? Harry Sibelius ( talk) 09:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Harry Sibelius Although I am confident that Patton was indeed referring to Jewish DP in this specific quote, I must agree that consensus errs on the side of ambiguity to uninformed readers when the quote stands alone. Without supporting the quote with addition sourced content to explain who Patton was referencing, the argument for both sides can still be presented; and to include all of the above just to validate this one term seems a bit undue weight. Unless the section itself is expanded to show more examples of Patton's anti-semtism to include this quote with the RS named above, I think the quote that is there now is sufficient. But I will wait to hear what @ Hohum and @ Jwy have to say. Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 11:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing either side of the discussion, just pointing out that ANY interpretation of the primary source should be supported in the article by secondary sources(s) (not just here on this talk page). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Hohum: Agreed. @ Jwy: Agreed. Maineartists ( talk) 21:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Does anyone still have a problem with the inclusion of this quote:
"If they were not kept under guard,” Patton wrote in his diary, “they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts, and would eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged.”
The objections, I seem to remember, were that it was not clear whether he was referring to Jews specifically or not, and that the source I used was primary (it wasn't; it's from a Washington Post article analyzing Patton's diaries). Harry Sibelius ( talk) 04:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is written mostly in summary style, not with numerous quotations, and the paragraph already has five quotations from Patton. Per WP:OVERQUOTING, overuse happens when "quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased" or "dominate the article or section", and "Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text." A sixth quotation from Patton, especially a long quotation, is probably WP:UNDUE here. If the paragraph is expanded, concise descriptions summarizing WP:BESTSOURCES should be emphasized instead. Llll5032 ( talk) 11:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Sure. The quotations from Patton in this section are not all regarding the same subject, though. One is about denazification, three are about Jewish DPs, and one is about the Jewish influence on the press. These are separate subjects. We already have three other basically interchangeable quotes form Patton on Jewish DPs: "This applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals" "stinking mass of humanity" "Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act". We could remove at least one of these, since they basically attest to the same thing, and replace it with the "locusts" quote, since it adds understanding of Patton's reasoning behind his actions in a way that is currently lacking. There is even a quote from Martin Blumenson in this section, meant to summarize Patton's actions during the occupation, suggesting that the reason behind them was insanity, but no quote from Patton himself on the subject. This seems undue, considering that Patton himself gave an explanation for his actions that is not currently quoted in the article. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 21:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Longstanding content usually gets more deference than newly proposed content (see WP:EDITING and WP:EDITCON), but perhaps other editors will favor removing of one of the longstanding quotations. Harry, do any WP:BESTSOURCES consider the "locusts" quotation to be important? The source you cite for it is a WP:RSOPINION source (which means it is in a reliable publication but is marked as "opinion"); although it may be usable, it is not considered as good as a high-quality book or high-quality journal article. If you can show that WP:BESTSOURCES consider the "locusts" quotation important to understanding Patton, then you could make a stronger argument for including it based on WP:DUEWEIGHT. Last, are you certain that paraphrasing is inadequate for explaining his actions, and why? Llll5032 ( talk) 02:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that's actually a pretty good paraphrase you've made, except that it doesn't quite reflect Patton's fear that many of the prisoners themselves would end up shot, or that he would have to re-arrest them eventually after letting them go. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 06:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply
All right, I tried a different paraphrase, aiming to stay concise. Llll5032 ( talk) 13:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't imagine viewing the life of a ww2 officer through the uberwoke 202?'s lense will go over well.

I can't imagine criticizing the man who literally fought and defeated Hitlers 3rd Reich.

I just feel his actions here might outweigh any words. Jjmanning25 ( talk) 14:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You obviously can imagine it, because you just posited it. Nowhere have I criticized General Patton, and I am not sure anyone else here has, either. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 00:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Denazification

That he trivialized denazification is not cited. I only found it on History.com [1], which is marked as generally unreliable Wikipedia:GUNREL. It can be found in intro, just cntrl+f nazification. Captchacatcher ( talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/patton-questions-necessity-of-germanys-denazification

What is in a name?

Would someone please add something that explains why the General is known as George S. Patton "Junior", when his grandfather is denoted as George S. Patton I and his father is listed as George S. Patton II? I cannot reconcile this anomaly, especially when Patton names his son George S. Patton IV. Perhaps I missed this, but it is not in the Early Life section, where the Patton lineage is discussed in length. MissMaryMack14 ( talk) 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Can an admin strike through my edits because I don't want anyone to learn anything from my edits?

After editing this article, I seem to have been reverted by some very, very clever people who are so clever they don't think anyone else needs to know any more information about Patton's death. Using such a clever argument about my grammar (ho ho if only you knew who I was really was) - and of course I am being polite - because it's so so important to be polite to these individuals who sign up to do free work on this site for those little badges. That what they have written is preserved.

I therefore demand that my edits are struck through by an admin so no one else can know and thus learn anything from what I wrote. I don't want others to know the location of Patton's crash, the name of the street it happened on, and other historical details. Can this be done? I mean luckily there are so many other professionally written web articles (hence where I got my own info from) others can start from scratch and do their own research. Hence I don't want my edits to be a help to anyone on here so I want my edits struck through and kept from public view. 146.90.208.242 ( talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Typically, if content has been added in good faith, it doesn't violate the copyrights of someone else's work, the content is appropriate for the article and supported by reliable sourcing, then demanding it be removed out of spite is not really a sufficiecnt reason. Once you contribute content to Wikipedia, it's not really yours anymore, (you'll find more info on that here and here). If your experience here has left you with a bad taste, it's probably best to just walk away. I'm not suggesting you leave Wikipedia completely, but instead perhaps consider working on a different arricle. (jmho) - wolf 03:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Unless the poster has violated Wiki policy, inviting him to stop working non an article smacks of censorship? Jokem ( talk) 06:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Suggesting they take a break from an article that is leading to such ill-will that they are demanding content be censored out spite is just that... a suggestion. And you somehow think it's a bad one? - wolf 06:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
OP, since you made this request on 2 July, an unknowable number of editors could have looked back through the history and identified exactly what you have contributed. Then, in case your request is ever acted on, they could have strategically kept a record of your edits, and then, once they've been expunged from the article's history and the article proper, they could just add them back in under their own editorships. So the info is not going to be lost no matter what happens. Best to just walk away. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:George_S._Patton&oldid=1193655946"