While many historians until recently argued that Patton was the most respected of American Generals for his skills as a tactician and extensive knowledge of warfare. A few months back I read a work that picked apart this argument to illustrate that among the command of the German Army, Patton was respected less than more important decision makers like Eisenhower and Bradley. In Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of his Enemies, Harry Yeide illustrates that Patton was not as highly praised by German commanders as had been previously believed. In shifting through German unit reports, officer accounts, and telephone transcripts, Yeide reveals that German Command all but ignored Patton.

For instance, following the Battle of Sicily it was believed that Patton’s actions as commander caught the attention of his enemies, resulting in German high command keeping an ever watching eye on the American General. In reality, as Yeide displays, there is really no credence to these traditional beliefs. For example following the slapping of the battle fatigued soldiers, Patton was sent on a tour of the Mediterranean in hopes that his continuous movements may garnish attention from German intelligence, and in turn, help the Seventh Army to move to England undetected. Yeide shows that this assumption that Patton was so praised by German Generals that they kept close watch of him is false. He asserts that, "The notion that Patton could be used to deceive the Germans appears to have arisen from a presumption about German thinking in Washington rather than any evidence that the Germans had a particular interest in the general's activities." Yeide goes on to say that in reality Patton was just one of many threats to the Germans, and as such, was no more respected than any other American General.

Yeide furthers his argument by explaining that the German High Command did not identify Patton as the commander of the fake U.S. Army Group until well after they had fallen for the Calais ploy. The book goes on to suggest that Patton’s presence in Kent was not the decisive factor in the German miscalculation during the Allied invasion of mainland Europe. As Yeide argues, “The Germans did not track Patton's movements as the key to Allied intentions. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists." However, as the author does point out, German Generals did acknowledged Patton for his ability as an armored commander. As German General Gunther Blumentritt explained “We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive panzer-general of the Allies. . . His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander. He even improved on Napoleon's basic tenet - activité, vitesse - vitesse.”

Other German commanders also praised Patton for his ability as a Tank Commander and exquisite tactician. Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht's foremost practitioner of Blitzkrieg, stated after his capture in 1945 that, "I hear much about General Patton and how he conducted a good campaign. From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him on his victory since he acted as I would have done had I been in his place.” Yeide also notes that in comparison to many of the German Panzer Commanders, Patton would have been slightly above average at best.

So, did the Germans take note of Patton? Yes. Did German Generals respect him for his tactical abilities as an armored commander? Yes. Was he as highly respected in the terms of being viewed as a decisive element of the United States Army? Probably not.

Harry Yeide, Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of His Enemies (Zenith Press, Minneapolis), 2011.