Report by Gen. Eisenhower on the Patton incident (11-26-43)

Report by Gen. Eisenhower on the Patton incident
November 26, 1943

Eisenh1

During the Sicilian campaign, Gen. Patton was the mainspring of the effort during the sustained drive of the Seventh Army from Gela all the way to Messina. He absolutely refused to accept procrastination or any excuse for delay, with a resulting rapid advance of that army which had much to do with the early collapse of resistance in Sicily. He drove himself as hard as he did the members of his army throughout the campaign and consequently became almost ruthless in his demands upon individual men.

While visiting wounded in hospitals in two instances, he encountered unwounded patients who had been evacuated for what is commonly known as “battle anxiety,” specifically nerve difficulty. Also, one man had a temperature. He momentarily lost his temper in these two instances and in an unseemly and indefensible manner upbraided the individuals, and in one of the cases cuffed the individual so that the man’s helmet rolled off his head. These incidents were first reported officially to me by a medical officer, this report being followed by reports from three reputable newspapermen.

Prior to receiving the report from the pressmen, I took the following action:

First, to Gen. Patton I wrote a letter advising him of the allegation, expressing my extreme displeasure, and informing him that any repetition would result in his instant relief. Further, I told him that he would necessarily make, on his own initiative, to the individuals involved, amends, and, if necessary, take the necessary steps to make proper amends before his whole army. I also told him that I would reserve decision affecting his relief from command of the army until I could determine the effect of his own corrective action.

Second, the problem before me was whether the incidents as reported were sufficiently damaging to Patton and to his standing in his army to compel me to relieve him, thus losing to the United Nations his unquestioned value as commander of an assault force, or whether less drastic measures would be appropriate.

I sent Gen. Lucas to make a complete investigation of the affair. I also sent another general officer to Sicily and made a short visit there myself for the purpose of determining whether or not any resentment existed in the Seventh Army against Gen. Patton.

The following action was taken by Patton:

He personally sought out the individuals involved and the persons who were present at the time the incidents took place. To these he made full apologies which it was reported to me were accepted. In addition, he visited each and every division in the Seventh Army and called together all officers, to whom he registered his regret that he should have been guilty of any conduct which could be considered unfair or un-American. The officers of these divisions in turn relayed this message to the enlisted men.

The measures taken by Patton were discussed by me with the three newspapermen who have reported the incident, and apparently, they were convinced that the measures taken were adequate in the circumstances.

On top of all this, I sent the theater Inspector General to make a thorough inspection of the Seventh Army with the particular mission of determining whether or not there existed in that force any general resentment against Patton. The Inspector General reported to me that, while there was more or less general knowledge that incidents of the character described had taken place, the men themselves felt that Gen. Patton had done a splendid overall job and no great harm had been done.

In this connection, it must be remembered that, while the conduct of Patton in these specific cases was indefensible and resented by every officer who knew of it, Patton has in thousands of cases personally supported, encouraged and sustained individuals. The net result was that throughout the Sicilian campaign, the Seventh Army had a high morale.

I personally supervised this investigation throughout and took those steps that seemed applicable in the circumstances because I believe that Gen. Patton has a great field of usefulness in any assault where loyalty, drive and gallantry on the part of the Army commander will be essential.

Gen. Smith had a press conference yesterday with all of the representatives of the press and explained the essentials of the entire story as given above. This was done because of reports of the publication in the United States of exaggerated versions of the story. In this connection, I commend the great body of American newspapermen in this theater, because all of them knew something of the facts involved and some of them knew all, including the corrective action taken and the circumstances that tended to ameliorate the obvious injustice of Patton’s acts. These men chose to regard the matter as one in which the High Command acted for the best interests of the war effort and let the matter rest there. To them I am grateful.

Summing the matter up: It is true that Gen. Patton was guilty of reprehensible conduct with respect to two enlisted men. They were both suffering from a nervous disorder and one man in the case had a temperature. Following an exhaustive investigation, including a personal visit to Sicily, I decided that the corrective action as described above was suitable in the circumstances and adequate. I still believe that this decision was sound. Finally, it has been reported many times to me that in every recent public appearance of Patton before any crowd composed of his own soldiers, he is greeted by thunderous applause.

2 Likes

The Pittsburgh Press (November 27, 1943)

Eisenhower report on Patton fails to close incident

Senate Military Committee asks further details before it will consider slapping case ended

Washington (UP) –
The personal report of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower today whetted, rather than satisfied, the Congressional appetite for more details on Lt. Gen. George S. Patton’s slapping of an ailing soldier in a Sicilian field hospital.

Gen. Eisenhower’s report acknowledged that Gen. Patton was “guilty of reprehensible conduct” which might have merited his removal except that it apparently did not impair his efficiency as a military leader. It was submitted to the Senate yesterday along with a statement that Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson believed Gen. Eisenhower’s ruling was “right and proper.”

Seeks more details

The Senate Military Affairs Committee, which had asked Mr. Stimson for a full report, decided it wanted more details before it would agree. Committee Chairman Robert R. Reynolds (D-NC) and several other committee members declared that Mr. Stimson’s and Gen. Eisenhower’s statements “by no means close the matter.”

Some of the questions in the minds of committee members include:

  1. Are there other similar incidents in Gen. Patton’s background?

Gen. Eisenhower’s report revealed for the first time that Gen. Patton had berated two shell-shocked soldiers but slapped only one.

  1. Why wasn’t this incident, which occurred in August, reported by the War Department earlier?

  2. Why did Gen. Eisenhower’s Algiers headquarters issue a flat denial of knowledge of the affair when it was first reported last weekend?

The Algiers headquarters issued a denial Monday but confirmed the story the next day.

  1. Since Gen. Eisenhower’s decision against firing Gen. Patton was based on a finding that Gen. Patton’s own 7th Army troops felt “no great harm was done,” has subsequent publicity brought about the need for a new appraisal of Gen. Patton’s present efficiency?

To consider promotion

These questions, along with others, may be addressed to Mr. Stimson or some other War Department representative in executive session next Friday when the committee meets to consider Gen. Patton’s promotion from the permanent rank of colonel to that of major general. His present rank of lieutenant general is temporary.

Two service publications – The Army and Navy Journal and The Army and Navy Register – expressed disapproval of the Army’s handling of the affair. Both are unofficial but highly influential publications.

The Journal advocated editorially that Gen. Patton be relieved of his command. The Register regretted the suppression of the news at the time of the incident.

Brother comments

Other expressions of opinion on the Patton affair came yesterday from Congressmen, the top Protestant Church executive in the United States and Gen. Patton’s brother, a doctor.

Rep. Bernard W. Kearney (R-NY), a retired brigadier general of the New York National Guard, condemned Gen. Patton as “unfit and dangerous for duty.” His colleague, Rep. Hamilton Fish (R-NY) said Gen. Patton’s apology was enough and further controversy over the issue would undermine American morale.

Dr. William Barrow Pugh, Protestant official just back from a war-front tour, said “there is no excuse for a general striking a soldier.” He said he had an hour and a half interview with Gen. Patton, during which Gen. Patton had his Bible close at hand and frequently quoted from it.

In Columbia, South Carolina, Dr. C. D. Patton, the general’s brother, said Gen. Patton’s apology to the soldier was in effect an apology to the nation, and the public’s raking of the general over the coals afterward was unwarranted.


Stimson believes decision proper

Washington (UP) –
The following is the text of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson’s letter transmitting Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s report of the Patton incident to the Senate Military Affairs Committee:

In sending you herewith the report requested by you on the incident involving Lt. Gen. George S. Patton Jr., I wish to make clear certain basic principles which, from the beginning of the war, the War Department has followed because the Chief of Staff and I have considered adherence to them necessary to bring to our country, as quickly and with as little loss of life as possible, the ultimate victory in the great struggle being fought around the world.

In the first place, the greatest care was exercised in selecting the commanders of the distant theaters of war. The selected commander was then given the fullest authority to deal with all problems which might arise within his theater. Our principle in doing this was that the man on the ground knows the details of each such problem much better than we could know them in Washington. We then held – and hold – the theater commanders responsible for results.

Accordingly, Gen. Eisenhower is responsible for all matters of discipline within his theater. I am therefore sending you his report with the full confidence of the War Department that his sense of justice and fairness has resulted in his acting in this matter, as in all others, in the highest interest of his soldiers and his country.

The decision to weigh Lt. Gen. Patton’s great services to his country, in World War I and in World War II, from these shores to Casablanca and through Tunisia to triumph in Sicily, on the one hand, against an indefensible act on the other, was Gen. Eisenhower’s. As his report shows, Gen. Eisenhower in making his decision also considered the value to our country of Gen. Patton’s aggressive, winning leadership in the bitter battles which are to come before final victory.

I am confident that you will agree with me that Gen. Eisenhower’s decision, under these difficult circumstances, was right and proper.

1 Like