(adamcotton @ Jan 1 2006, 06:21 AM) [post=43856]"I find virtually all denigrations of Patton to be based more on an "amalgum" as you say of the movie Patton and a pro-Monty envy, than a specific knowledge of the man and the details of his fighting. If you want to know the truth, read his letters and his diary. One does not lie about tactical operations and reasons for it in their diary as it is a personal book documenting history for later review. There is no reason to put on a show for ones’ self. The Patton Papers has letters and diary entries and explains the contexts that Patton comments on. They are highly detailed." Jimbo, it is rather naieve of you to state that diaries, by their nature, do not lie! You are obviously unaware that Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (commander of the BEF) kept meticulous day-by-day diaries during the First World War. He subsequently edited and re-wrote these before publishing them for public consumption after the war - I wonder why? [/b] Adam, Patton died a few months after the war. I doubt he could have edited his notes to where they would not have been easily contradicted by his superiors and subordinates that he wrote about. In addition most of the letters in The Patton Paper were letters sent from Patton to others though there were a lot posted the other way and some posted about Patton where Patton was not even involved like letters from Ike to Marshall and vice-versa. Lastly the compilation was done by Martin Blumenson a member of Patton's command staff. It would have to be a co-conspiracy where both men were not afraid of being made fools out of things that would be blatantly obvious. But in general if you wish to deceive people by modifying history, you would do it with giving one historian too much esteem as a historian only knows what is publicly available to know about any subject and this is subject to propagating errors as well. I don’t say that everything read in a diary is true but I do say it was what the person believed and understood at the time. The more times something gets “retold” the more it deviates from reality. So I disagree with you that I am naïve to place a good deal of credence on interdepartmental correspondence and personal notes of a man that could be so easily contradicted. Since historians rarely agree, then that means all of them are wrong except possibly one of them on a given subject and perhaps they all are. This we know. So to put credence on historians is what really deserves the label “naïve”. (Max (UK) @ Jan 1 2006, 08:01 AM) [post=43860]</div><div class='quotemain'> You better stick with the slapping incidents. They are your only chance to get a lick in on Patton. If you want to know the truth, read his letters and his diary. [/b] You've obviously done extremely limited and biased reading on Patton/Monty, "Jimbo". If I felt it was worth the time, I would join in this argument. Alas, I don't. That line about his letters and diary is a classic. Hilarious !! [/b] Conspicuous by its absence is any intellection substance to your posts, Max.