7/9/2013

D'Este strikes again

Political columnists aren't the only ones who use Bradley as a punching bag (see the 7/5 post). Even renowned historians occasionally do the same thing - witness Carlos D'Estes' essay in the recent magazine "Great American Fighters."

D'Este's mention of Bradley is mostly aimed at making George Patton seem even greater than he was* - the same sort of rhetorical device that the columnist used, though D'Este has much less of an excuse. I picked on the "eminent" historian quite a bit in General at War, so I won't retread that ground here. I will note that the article, though seemingly based on D'Estes' book on Patton, makes distortions that aren't in that book.

I've never made an argument that Bradley was a better general than Patton. Others have. Comparing generals is extremely difficult, as you have to put them into context before you can even understand what they're about, and it's rare that the circumstances will match up to the degree necessary. I don't think there's any doubt that Patton was better at some things than Bradley. Patton was clearly the more colorful and larger personality, and left a diary that reveals much of inner thinking and turmoil - gold mine for historians.

Bradley learned a lot from Patton, and in fact the two men thought about war in very similar terms. I do believe that not only could Patton have not done Bradley's job in Europe, but that Patton was fortunate to have Bradley as his commander there.

Now you can interpret that idea in many ways. My own feeling is that Patton respected Bradley just enough to be kept from his own worst impulses - usually. Many historians have talked about Patton maturing in battle during the war, and point to the slapping incident as the key. While I can't dismiss either contention, I think there is also plenty of evidence that Patton was the same Patton in Africa, Sicily, and Europe. The one difference was Bradley - you don't see any idiotic left-turns in France like you did in Sicily.

This isn't the place to list Bradley's accomplishments, which were many. You'd need a book - here's another plug for General at War. You'll find a few of his shortcomings listed there, too. But in any event, I don't think it's necessary to make Bradley a straw man to illustrate Patton's greatness, real or imagined.

* It makes some unsupportable assertions about Patton foreseeing the Battle of the Bulge, among other weak points. None of this is to imply that Patton's performance in the Bulge was anything less than spectacular. And in fact one can only imagine what might have happened if Bradley's plan to use a northern pincer as well as a southern one early in the battle had been implemented - American troops might have been in Berlin even earlier than they were.

Note the word "might" there.