I think the film succeeded in portraying a Patton that was neither a likeable person but also not the greatest evil on Earth. I would disagree with any notion that the film was a whitewash.

Simply put George C. Scott refused an Oscar for his performance as Patton so I guess there's a little bit of truth in it. I suggest not to let this dissolve into an argument over virtually nothing, okay?

I'm simply debating, not arguing.

I will say though that the reason Scott refused the Oscar was not because of any historical inaccuracy with the film but because he had philosophical problems with the Oscar ceremony/awards show in general.

Here from Wikipedia,

"Scott refused the Oscar nomination for Patton, just as he had done for his 1962 nomination for The Hustler.[6]

In a letter to the Motion Picture Academy he stated that he didn't feel himself to be in competition with other actors. However, regarding this second rejection of the Academy Award, Scott famously said elsewhere, "The whole thing is a goddamn meat parade. I don't want any part of it."

George C. Scott was great. Another one of my favorite actors.

And despite the hubbub about Patton himself.. and realizing that it's Hollywood after all, it's still a good flick. Nor did I ever think it glorified Patton in any way. The man had substantial faults, there's no doubt and if you've ever read "Crusade in Europe" by DDE, you'd know that Eisenhower realized his weaknesses as well. But he was first and formost a fighting military commander and there's no doubt he got the job done.