Posted on 07/19/2004 5:04:30 PM PDT by flowerjoyfun
As were a great number of "devout Christians" of Patton's day. I never understood the hatred of Jews "as killers of Christ", but it was very real and very widespread. That topic was addressed ad infinitum in the Passion of the Christ threads.
Beau wrote ~ Instead of asking us to prove an unfounded sweeping general accusation which you have just thrown out without offering a bit of proof, let alone source, you should prove your accusation first ~ then we might deal with a defense.
Saying that you just 'heard it somewhere' makes you sound like some kind hateful person yourself and not a rational soul who is interested in the facts.
Source your accusation; and because it is so dire source it from three different respectable sources.
General Patton's accomplishments, and his family's, are too great and too real to be left besmirched by the likes of your rumor mongering. ~ Beau
theDentist spews ~ Stick it Beau. I've been reading about Patton for 30+ years. I don't make a notation of every book, every article, every documentary, every movie, every radio discussion I ever experienced. Not good enough for you? Too damn bad. If it's such a twist in your knickers, YOU do the research. But for 1 reference, read "General Patton: A Soldier's Life" where it was stated in no uncertain terms.
Try Google, and then whine to all those various sources.
Beau writes ~ Typical girlie man: deal with any disagreement with a vicious assault of name calling, deny the validity of facts, then throw in another personal attack against the one who dares to question the girlie man.
You made the assertion that Patton hated Jews; you prove it. Pulling something out of your pants and tossing it around, does not make it anything than what was to begin with, a big giant pile of waste. If you want to make such a statement give me the edition, and the page number, preferable a direct html link. Otherwise keep your rumor mongering pie hole shut.
Say, have you heard that Patton hated Jews?
3 sources to start with, you whiny liberal.
http://www.imaginer.ch/courrier/reportages/Shoah/en/histoire.html
Patton the Anti-Semite
... The famous General George S. Patton went even further. In his diary he castigated those who "think that the displaced person is a human being, which he isn't, and this applies especially to the Jews, who are inferior to animals".
General Patton: A Soldier's Life
...Patton himself was a lifelong anti-Semite, his attitudes inherited from his patrician father; even after the liberation of the Nazi death camps he would insist that Jews “are lower than animals.”
The "Jewish Threat": Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army - Joseph Bendersky
Contains several examples about prominent generals such as George Patton--described as a crude anti-Semite--as well as Marshall and Eisenhower.
You're on your own from here, Hillary.
I'd heard that.
I and others have cited some 6 sources of Patton and Anti-Semitism, you wanted 3. And in one of them, you state "... this is a direct quote from Patton's own diaries you say, and is damming in the extreme, if true." SO as I see it, you can say oops and bury the hatchet, or you can continue to act like a liberal.
As I have read ‘the dentist’s’ exchange: what Beau was demanding was your sources before you started to smirk. Why are you calling beau a liberal for demanding your sources?
‘the dentist’, not Beau, has done exactly what the liberals are famous for: name-calling and making the argument personal instead of documenting the facts and using them to build something better.
ping
ping
ping
First off, I am a big fan of the General's. I posted his wonderful poem, "Through a Glass, Darkly" (post #3). Someone else pointed out the allegations of anti-semitism (post #28). I merely agreed that it was a disappointment (#29). Beau got into that particular thread later (#38), snottily saying we needed to provide sources (at least 3 in fact) else we were rumor mongering.
I replied (rashly I suppose). We provided sources. 6 or 7 in fact, including Patton's own journals.
Beau, in #42 then writes "Typical girlie man: deal with any disagreement with a vicious assault of name calling, deny the validity of facts, then throw in another personal attack against the one who dares to question the girlie man."
BTW, Do you see the irony there? He starts with name-calling, denies the validity of the story, then again throws in a name-calling personal attack. Pot kettle black.
Later, in post 43 he admits that he is wrong to 1 person, pharmboy, though he has been snotty to several more than that. If it were me, I'd have made sure everyone I argued with was copied on that one. But no, he hadn't the testicular fortitude to do that.
You can read it any way you wish, but I defended my posting, provided the sources he demanded (as did others), and was no tthe first to get snotty. But he wanted to fight in the swill, I obliged to get down there with him, because in the long run of life, it matters not.
Ultimately, I was (sadly) shown to be right, and he didn't apologize as a gentleman would. Anything else, daisy?
I mean, we are not only beset by terrorists 24/7, and thus there is a (just) war going on; but this is also a presidential election year.
I thought last night, former president Bill Clinton excelled and astounded at the fine art of spinning "world-class fiction." It seemed the glories of his rhetoric were designed to disguise the weakness of his logic; notwithstanding, his conclusions seemed to have elicited a wildly intoxicated resonance in that crowd, wildly glad to give assent to the completely unintelligible....
One of the things I pray for is that folks be able to tell the difference between fiction (illusion) and reality these days.
Thanks for the ping, T7!
OK, call me a sucker that will bump any thread heading by "The Patton Society".
"He was true to the principles of his religion, Episcopalian, and was regular in Church attendance and practices, unless duty made his presence Impossible. "
Hmmmm ... then why did he have an affair with his niece? thankfully she didn't get pregnant.
Odd, he could hardly make a statement without swearing ... in those days Episcopalians were conservative. Today they are mostly misguided liberals.
Thanks for the ping!
:-)
I was impressed with Obama. Assuming he is sincere, my impression was that (1) he would have made a good Republican, (2) if the Democratic Party were made up of people like him, I wouldn't be so frightened of a Dem victory at the polls. But the Dem Party isn't made up of people like him, which means either he must support things that will violate his conscience, or leave the party, or he must work to reform the DNC.
The crowd was responding enthusiastically to what was essentially a Republican message, which means that maybe a few Obama's could redeem that party. I won't be holding my breath, though. I fear they will reform him before he reforms them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.