George Patton was a Greater General than Bernard Law Montgomery

Thanks for posting, Opinionator! A splendid argument. I will begin by addressing my Point number 3, and also my opponent's counter. We intentionally created this debate with the word "better" so that we could analyze as many aspects of the general as possible. My opponent has a valid assertion in that the general's life at home should largely be discounted - it is irrelevant as to how the general conducted himself on the battlefield. However, the problem with Patton is that he interwined his personal life with his command on the front. He was notorious for taking advantage of women at the different theatres - in France, England, Italy and even Germany! Patton behaved in this manner throughout his wartime years and considered himself, "A connoisseur of the European female form, favouring the statuesque Norman and Breton women to the shapeless Arabs, the overstuffed Italians and the boyish English." (Irving, pg. 312) Patton bathed in luxury and delight, fine artwork and lavish accommodations while his men slogged through the mud at the front. (Keep this in mind; I'm going to note this, later) There are a plethora of balls, dinners etc. that Patton attended throughout the course of the war; his social life was quite active, and he (as well as a number of American generals) acted as if rationing in the United States and much of Europe was nonexistent. While engaging the enemy at the Metz, for example, while his soldiers suffered from the trauma of constant fighting, Patton headquartered in a lovely Regensburg castle of German design. (Irving, pg. 406) "Patton didn't believe in a grande alliance" I have found no evidence of this in my research, but an Alliance drags the U.S and Canada into conflicts that we simply do not need to be dragged into. Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 America was trying to stay out of WWII. Right, one can't simply research Patton's contempt of the grand alliance, but there are a plethora of incidents in which he blatantly attempts to undermine both the efforts and commands of his allies and peers. I think all of you readers comprehend that Patton vehemently detested the British – and those who cooperated with British sentiment, "… damn all British and all so called Americans who had their legs pulled by them. I will bet that Ike does nothing about them… I would rather be commanded by an Arab. I think less than nothing about Arabs" (Irving, pg. 55). Patton disliked many of his peers, especially those who could threaten his glory. My opponent asked why Patton hadn't been dismissed if he couldn't keep military secrets. I must say that I wish I knew the answer. Eisenhower simply refused to sack any 3 Star general throughout the course of Cossack and Overlord. There were many that should have been dismissed, including but not limited to Bedell Smith, Tex. C. H. Lee, Mark Clark etc. It is obvious that Patton couldn't keep his mouth shut. On multiple occasions Patton dodged the censors by having a friend returning home carry his mail. http://books.google.ca... During Operation Fortitude, Patton was supposed to keep the fact that he was in England a secret. What did he promptly do but equip a truck with a bullhorn and then announce his arrival to the countryside. Patton was never privy to Ultra or involved in the planning of Overlord. "Patton was reckless and seemed to believe that the war was designed for his own further gains and glory (Walker incident, for example.)" I have looked up the Walker incident but there are many. Even though my opponent states this fact, Patton still got things done. If Montgomery were left to sweep France on his own it would have taken ages." My apologies, as it isn't Walkers but Waters, Patton's son in law. Patton sent 300 soldiers and 57 tanks and other vehicles to "liberate" a prisoner of war camp that he suspected his son in law was imprisoned in. The camp was deep in enemy territory and only 35 men made it back - all vehicles were lost. He made reckless charges, contravened strategy (such as the incident at Messina) and even directly disobeyed orders from Ike (such as through the Black Forest when he had been ordered to halt, but proceeded anyway, stealing petrol from other units). As a note, my opponent claims that Monty consumed fuel reserves, but Patton actually sanctioned that his soldiers steal them from other units. Further more, Patton forced his soldiers to endure terrifying conditions while he luxuriated. He then has the gall to slap several poor souls suffering of battle exhaustion? He is quoted as having said, "...I gotta have gas for my tanks, my men can eat their belts". ( http://ww2db.com... ) He also seemed to be more concerned about petrol than woolen socks, which would keep the soldiers from trench foot. I only have a little space left, so I'll address Montgomery. 1. Montgomery fought in World War I, a conflict in which hundreds of thousand English died - many more than the Americans lost. He was a courageous subaltern who was wounded at Ypres. Due the the staggering losses, the English were hesitant to sacrifice soldiers so carelessly, again. Their strategies preferred spending money and equipment if it could save men's lives. If Montgomery failed to move quickly, it was always with the concern of losing thousands of soldiers that plagued the back of his mind. Patton had no such moral concern - he was tactless and bulled his men through headlong. I will comment also that at the standstill at Caen, Montgomery had always intended for the Americans to break out in Operation Cobra while he bogged multiple German Divisions around Caen. The English may not have advanced as quickly as intended, but during that entire phase of conflict they faced the most numerous and efficient of the opposition (including two elite SS divisions and another six armoured), in contrast to American forces before Cobra. Montgomery's intent was to secure a point on which the United States' Army could pivot and entrap the Germans. That is almost exactly what occurred. Also, whenever people say Montgomery failed to act quickly, do they forget his courageous pursuit in North Africa? Monty and Ike actually wagered a B17 that Eisenhower would beat Monty to Pfaz, Tunisia. At this time, Eisenhower had just dropped into Tunisia, and wasn't very far away; Montgomery's 8th Army was still in Tripoli, Libya. However, Montgomery stormed across North Africa and beat the Western Task Force to Pfaz. Montgomery was allotted fuel reserves, but it was actually Tex. Lee's fault that there was such a shortage in the first place. Huge supply dumps had been established in Normandy, but why couldn't Com Z get them to the fighting soldiers? This is irrelevent, as it was Patton who stole fuel, not Monty. 3. I would assume that my opponent is referring to the Falaise Pocket. It had never been Mongomery's intention to trap the Germans in a pocket - he wanted to drive them against the Elbe. It was impulsive generals who were exceedingly fortunate who caused the discrepancy in strategy. Well, it's been jolly good fun, so far!