Customer Reviews

General Patton: A Soldier's Life

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Books written on the life of the great American general, George S. Patton, prove the maxim that history is not objective, but interpretive. Certainly Hirshson's work is a new interpretation of mostly familiar facts, but does the reader accept Hirshson's version? After reading this book, I came to the conclusion that, while it is an admirable attempt by Hirshson, I still must consider D'Este's work THE Patton masterpiece. Hirshson does use new sources previously unused in other Patton biographies and his examination of the events occurring after Patton's death concerning his diary are intriguing. However, he lightly skims over, in my opinion, very significant moments in Patton's career and private life. Most disturbing to me is the emphasis on blaming Patton's "Blood and Guts" pre-battle speeches as the cause of atrocities committed by American troops in Sicily. I find that to be a real stretch on the author's part. However, the book is a good beginning for anyone discovering Patton, but I think it will leave them wanting more which, in that case, they should then feast on D'Este's deeply engossing magnum opus. I found the main difference in the two authors to be this: D'Este admires his subject; Hirshson does not.

Stanley P. Hirshson's "General Patton: A Soldier's Life" is an average book. Leveraging the preface, Mr. Hirshson seems to offer an apology and justification to prepare the reader for the journey he is about to embark. Mr. Hirshson writes, "I take issue with the way previous biographies of Patton have been researched. Incomplete research has, in my opinion, led to interpretations that are at best dubious." Published within a few years of Carlo D'Este's single volume biography of General Patton, Mr. Hirshson seems to rely not on his ability to present a compelling biography, but rather on his determination to find fault or deficiencies in the efforts of previous authors.

Mr. Hirshson does present new and previously unmentioned events and anecdotes regarding the General. However, he goes out of his way to put a different spin on a number of well-known and universally accepted facts surrounding the Man. With 60 years of research and scrutiny relative to General Patton, it is difficult to believe that Mr. Hirshson is accurate in each of his claims. These claims come across as a desperate attempt by the author to separate his book from previous works. Several of the claims are, when viewed in context of the whole, unimportant. The single exception to this is the author's account of the atrocities committed in Sicily. Mr. Hirshson makes the absurd argument that these atrocities were the result of Patton's fire breathing and warlike speeches to his men. Mr. Hirshson ends the chapter by doing something that is unusual for a book of this type. After spending several pages walking the reader through his interpretation of the atrocities, Mr. Hirshson concludes by offering a half-hearted justification for even including this information. Mr. Hirshson writes, "Of what earthly value is uncovering and writing about such events sixty years after they occurred? The twentieth century might well be labeled the century of bold talk leading to holocausts and ethnic cleansing. The more such tragedies are discussed, perhaps the rarer they will become."

Love him or hate him, General Patton is a larger than life figure. Thus, even under the pen of Mr. Hirshson, the General still manages to leap off the page. For the individual who has studied General Patton, Mr. Hirshson's effort at chronicling his life will undoubtedly add to the fascination of the man. For the first time reader of General Patton, the book is bound to leave more questions than answers. The book does not sufficiently provide the background or circumstances necessary to place Patton's decisions, methods, successes, and failures in context. The book spends little time in describing Patton's formative years, his close relationship with his father, his West Point years, and other significant events such as his courtship of his future wife, his service during World War I, or his work in creating the first American tank corps. In bouncing over these important junctures of the General's life, the author misses the opportunity to capture the reader. More importantly, the lack of this detail makes it difficult to follow the General through his own development as a soldier and a Leader.

Ultimately, "Patton: A General's Life" falls short in defining the complex, prejudiced, and brilliant General Patton.

While socially acceptable behavior may change from generation to generation, the dimensions of the human spirit remain constant. It is with this in mind that one should examine the life of General George S. Patton, Jr.

Despite what Hirshson claims in his preface (over 12 yrs of archival research!), this book does not break new ground in Patton historiography. While he does uncover (or actually use) some new materials such as letters and diaries of John Wood, the 4th Armored div commander, most of his primary source is the same used by earlier biographers of Patton from D'Este all the way back to Farago. Unfortunately, his interpretations of the same materials are, to be kind, adventurous and certainly open to criticisms. One ex. is Hirshson uses Liddell Hart's claim that Patton didn't think mobile exploitation was possible in Normandy. From this bit (and as Mearsheimer showed, Liddell Hart was not above self-serving revisionist history), Hirshson claims that Patton was not nearly the armored warfare visionary his previous biographers claimed (a tough proposition to sell no doubt). He conveniently forgets the fact that Patton was talking about the terrain immediately after the beachhead (namely the bocage country) and the two month long struggle validated Patton's prediction.

Another disturbing part of the book is Hirshson's claim that Patton's war speeches were responsible for American atrocities. This is just inane. Any serious reader of Patton's own works understands that Patton more than anyone else realized the difficulty of converting democratic citizenry into fighting men against an experienced Wehrmacht. Even more disturbing is Hirshson's focus on Patton's anti-Semitic views. While his views were deplorable and unjustifiable, they're hardly unrepresentative of his social peers (namely top American military generals). Considerable amount of this focus is present in his concluding chapter without really connecting how his views impacted his military conduct. He attempts to connect this to Patton's military governorship of Bavaria, but most Patton biographers and military historians would agree that it was Patton's political naivete and ignorance (after all, his political views were conservative to say the least) situated in a position where he was least suited.

His work sheds some new light on John Wood, a Patton friend and his first 4th Armored commander. However, in the overall Patton historiography (despite Wood's accomplishments), Wood's importance is a minor one. Overall, a disappointing work that does not come close to superceding Blumenson's annotated Patton Papers or D'Este's monumental biography. However, I do believe there are plenty of Montgomery admirers in UK who would love to scoop up this book.

Quite frankly, this is a dreadful book. It begins with an unbelievably self-serving and pompous introduction, in which the author strives to awe the reader with his credentials and the extent of his research, which sound most impressive, then proceeds to create a "biography" of dismaying shallowness and superficiality. While Hirshson repeatedly empahsizes the "freshness" and "newness" of his book, in truth the text lacks the personal insights and details of Ladislas Farago's "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph," while at the same time falling far short of the military analysis--both in the area of strategy and tactics as well as the realities of military life--that are the hallmarks of Carlo D'Este's "Patton: A Genius for War." Both are immeasurably superior to Hirschson's work. The reader is left with the distinct impression that the only times Hirschson went to any great lengths to analyze and interpret the wealth of material he allegedly accessed were in those passages where he sought to portray Patton as a proto-fascist or as the instigator of wartime atrocities. At the same time, some of the most significant events in Patton's career, particularly in his service in the ETO, are either given short shrift or ignored altogether by Hirschson. In doing so he has done a great disservice to the profession of historian. Equally disturbing is his prediliction for giving credence and lending authority to the military opinions of officers who never served at the command level that Patton did, but who felt themselves "qualified" to pass judgment on Patton's fitness for command and the decisions he made as commander of the Seventh and later Third Armies. Hirschson also makes a great song-and-dance over Patton's dismissal from command of the Fifteenth Army, building a myth that Patton's dismissal has been fraudulently presented to the American public as having been done in response to his anti-Soviet sentiments rather than his refusal to comply with Allied de-Nazification decrees. ... The [money] that would be spent on this book would be better spent on Farago and/or D'Este.

After an introduction where he first disparages previous biographies of Patton and then boldly promises something new and improved, I was ready to read this newer account of one of the more complex, controversial, and compelling characters in American history. After completing the full 700-plus pages of Hirschon's tome, however, I was left feeling that it could have been so much more.

Much as been written in previous reviews regarding Hirschon's revisionist tendencies, so I will forgo my similar comments on that aspect of this book. The thought that I kept repeating to myself as I read was, "This seems well researched and documented, it is too bad the writing style isn't better." I believe the author has done the historian' s task of seeking to probe the depth of his subject. Hirschon demonstrates quite well that he has explored the many facets of Patton's life and history. I enjoyed learning about his family history, his early education and some of his early struggles in life. Hirschon is to be congratulated on his diligence in digging through too often untapped resources to find new material about Patton. It is in his communication style as a writer of history, however, that I find the most glaring fault.

This book could have stood with a healthy re-editing. There is so much repetition of material-quotes, stories, and themes-that I wonder if this could not have been trimmed by some 25 percent at the very least. I grew so tired, for instance, of reading in detail concerning Patton's view about the warrior spirit and Valhalla. I appreciated the idea the first time I read it, but by the fourth or fifth extended reference to Patton's belief that the Valkyries chose the most valiant to die in battle and to come to Valhalla, and that he was taught belief by his Father, and that Patton used this belief to help with his own fear in battle, I was insulted. Once a writer introduces a concept, usually a simple subsequent reference will suffice to remind the reader of its significance. If that were the only case of this sort of repetition, that would be one thing, but there there are so many extended quotes that are repeated later, in different contexts, that I found myself going back to check on the first occasion, to make certain that I wasn't imagining things.

The other glaring problem I noticed is the inadequate uses of maps in the battle sections. This is almost inexcusable. If a historian is going to detail the battle plans of a strategist such as Patton. There are very few maps to begin with and the maps that are used lack any significant detail in reference to specific units and movements with the battles. After reading some excellent accounts of military history, I found this omission frustrating.

Overall, I must say that the book is not a bad book. I did read the whole thing and I believe that I learned a great deal about George Patton, both as a man and as a military figure. I do believe that Hirschon's book demonstrates that in history, especially history written for a more popular audience, detailed research is only one aspect of a good book. If it is not combined with equal attention to the detail of writing and editing, then the work is not complete.

Professor Hirshson spent eleven years writing this thinly veiled character assassination of a great field commander. Hirshson makes the wild claim that Patton's fiery speeches directly resulted in atrocities in the Italian campaign. This is pure speculation and impossible to support given the other well documented instances of spontaneous atrocities on the battlefield by the allies, in particular the British, Canadians and Russians. Furthermore, the author describes a civilian riot put down by allied fire as an atrocity. Hirshson also liberally quotes from sources with known animosity toward Patton. Wood, Devers, etc. were self-serving in their comments and Hughes was the worst of the lot. The most disappointing aspect of this book is what's missing. I had expected that Hirshson, as a biographer of General W.T. Sherman, would have spent some time drawing an analogy between their careers al la Victor Davis Hanson's book The Soul of Battle. Sherman and Patton were both great generals who cut wide swaths through the enemy with their armies. Both men were considered crazy by many of their peers. Both men's careers were jeopardized because of political naivete. In summary, this book is an hysterical portrayal of Patton and should be read only after more balanced accounts.

I read somewhere that great men have great flaws and General George S. Patton was no exception. Gruff, volatile, arrogant, and self-promoting, Patton was nonetheless a bold tactician. Stanley Hirshson, far from presenting a hagiography, has decided to concentrate on the former. Indeed, it appears Hirshson has a sizeable axe to grind.

Though no particular fan of Patton, I couldn't help but notice that much of the author's unfavorable narrative was not only anecdotal but defamatory. True, Patton was an extremely controversial figure with viewpoints any objective person would question, but Hirshson plainly contradicts himself when accusing the general of ant-semitism. His claim that Patton did not respect Jewish junior officers seems to be at odds with the fact that Patton sent several to free his son-in-law from a POW camp in Germany.

One also detects a socialist ideologue deeply offended by the concept of meritocracy. Patton simply didn't share the author's worldview and Hirshson's dismay at this bleeds through to the written page. When not immersed in these complexities, Hirshson does the battlefield a disservice with maps that are basically worthless. The troop dispositions and maneuvers of the ETO's most daring general are completely ignored. Rather, we are given town names and not a heck of a lot more.

Can Hirshson write well? He can. Did the book hold my interest? It did. But, as I closed the book for the final time, I did not feel the satisfaction that a good book provides. Instead, I felt I'd been piloted through the life of Patton by a man not disinterested enough to drive. 3 stars.

I am apalled at the tone that this book sets. While admittedly well researched, the author has gone to utmost lengths to disparge the memory of one of the greatest ever combat generals on all fronts.
The ultimate accolade is when one's enemy admits to your greatness. In this "Georgie" was fortuanete. The German Army High Command thought him dangerous, Stalin was impressed, Eisenhower and Marshall repeatedly "saved" him for greater things, but Professor Hirshon is not impressed.
Prior to D-Day, his presence in pretended planning tied up German divisions that could have been used in D-Day. His breakout and pursuit post D-Day was beyond compare. Turning the Third Army around and getting onto the offensive during the Battle of the Bulge even today is considered the ultimate in handling and Army at War. But that doesn't cut ice with Professor Hirshon either.
One presumes that the decision to install his statue at west Point was made by a committee of morons.
We are indeed luck that Patton's nanny and her closest blood relations to whom some form of oral history could have been passed on are long dead or not accessible to Professor Hirshon, or else he might have raked up something about how Patton didn't eat his food when he was three or maybe wet his bed.
Whether Professor Hirshon likes it or not, George Smith Patton Jr., General, USA was and will remain a military icon, one of the best combat generals that the world has ever seen. A master in exploiting and executing the expanding torrent theory.
The only reason this bok gets one star is because of it's subject. PATTON

Stanley P. Hirshon has written an average study of an important American war hero. Two and a half stars is really the rating I would like to give this book. Hirshon argues that he has written a different book from other biographers. While that is true, what he is really trying to do with that statement is distinguish himself from Carlo D'Este who published his Patton biography after Hirshon had invested four years of research into this project. He encourages his readers to compare his biography to others. I am not sure most people will do that, but I am also writing a book on the making of the film "Patton." As a result, I have consulted and examined both biographies and what I find is that Hirshon comes to a number of different conclusions, but most of them seem to exaggerate minor differences and/or reflect a lack of familiarity with the military.



Hirshon uncovers a number of vignettes about Patton's life that are new. His coverage of Patton's experiences in the Olympics is particularly good. One of D'Este's major themes was that the most significant factor in shaping Patton's life was his dyslexia. A major theme that Hirshon pursues without mentioning D'Este's name is that Patton was NOT dyslexic. He certainly has an argument, but he takes it too far. He also spends a good deal of time discussing Patton's father and the wide divergence in their political views. The senior Patton was an important politician in California, who played a key and underappreciated role in getting Woodrow Wilson reelected in 1916. While Patton's relationship with his father could have been better than it was and their different political values are part of that story, the differences are not what made the son historically important and the emphasis Hirshon places on them seems excessive.



When most people think of Patton, they think of a 43-year old raspy-voiced actor named George C. Scott standing in front of a giant U.S. flag giving a war speech: "We have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. You know, by God I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. By God, I do. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel." Hirshon spends a lot of time discussing the real speeches that Patton delivered to his soldiers and argues that these were the basis for atrocities that troops under his command committed. The story of killing civilians is hardly as new as Hirshon claims--other historians have looked into these events--and while some soldiers at the time tried to say they were following Patton's instructions there is a world of difference between giving a blood thirsty speech designed to inspire men to go into combat, and giving a formal order to kill non-combatants. Hirshon believes that had this event been better investigated at the time that it would have led to Patton's removal from command. This argument is difficult to accept, but one on which the author places great emphasis.



On other matters, the writing is adequate. The research is good and the author has consulted new sources that other biographers have not but their importances is open to question. What strikes me most is that Hirshon came to dislike his subject during this project and it shows. On the other hand, D'Este offers his readers a detached and balanced account that shows his readers Patton's strengths and weaknesses. D'Este is also quite alert to the details of military life. (I gave it five stars in an amazon.com review). You won't go wrong reading Hirshon's book, but there are other titles out there that are better on the same subject.

I'll admit, I'm an avid admirer of George S Patton Jr and it was for that reason I was enthusiatic about reading "General Patton: A Soldier's Life." I was very disappointed. I thought the author went out of his way to disparage GEN Patton but even when he sighted failures and controversial events, I was unimpressed with his supporting arguments. I also thought the book was poorly organized and at times confusing. The author would unexpectly jump forward or backward in time with little warning or explanation. I found it very distracting. Finally, I was confused by the author's seeming "love affair" w/Maj.-Gen. John S. Wood, CG 4th Armor Div. The book was about GEN Patton yet the author seemed to go out of his way to praise GEN Wood even when it didn't seem to have any connection with what he was relating about GEN Patton.

I'm probably being generous by giving the book 2 stars but any book on GEN Patton starts out with 1. Read it if you've read all the other excellent books on GEN Patton and you have the time.