raywest

23rd Nov 2018

Patton (1970)

Question: When Patton arrives at corps headquarters, a lieutenant says they have a new commander due. What is he talking about? Was their previous commanding general fired?

Answer: Due to his poor performance at Kasserine, General Eisenhower sacked Major General Lloyd Fredendal (Patton's predecessor), and he was sent back home in disgrace, never to command combat troops ever again.

stiiggy

Answer: Patton was put in charge of the American II Corps in North Africa after the Americans were badly defeated at the 1943 Battle of the Kasserine Pass. The lieutenant apparently does not realise that Patton has been sent to replace the previous commander and will begin enforcing strict discipline into the troops.

raywest

OK, but what about the other part of the question? Was their previous commanding general fired?

The previous commanding general was not "fired" he was replaced. It was Major General Lloyd Fredendall who was in command of the II Corps, at the Battle of Kasserine Pass. He was reassigned stateside, then about three months later was promoted to lieutenant general. For the rest of the war he was in command of training assignments in the US.

Super Grover

He was effectively "fired", as in removed, from his commanding position, due to his weak leadership, but that did not mean to say he was fired from the U.S. Army. The term "fired" is relative here.

raywest

I feel the need to clarify the point that my original reply was to the person who asked this question: "OK, but what about the other part of the question? Was their previous commanding general fired? " Please know that my reply was not meant to come off as butting heads with your answer, raywest, I was merely answering the submitter's question and acknowledging their use of the word "fired" within their question. But since you responded directly to my original reply, I'll respond. You state in your reply to me, "He was effectively "fired", as in removed, from his commanding position, due to his weak leadership, but that did not mean to say he was fired from the U.S. Army. The term "fired" is relative here." Okay, well I really don't agree with that, because I can't see the term "fired" as being relative here, IMO. In civilian life, when a civvie is "fired" from their job it means getting laid-off, being unemployed. To say a servicemember is "fired" from the military, it would basically mean being dishonorably discharged. The OP's question was regarding Lloyd Fredendall. After his reassignment, Major General Fredendall even received a promotion and became Lieutenant General Fredendall within a few months. Anyway, those are my personal thoughts on the matter. :) Be well, raywest. With warm regards, Rikki.

Super Grover

Not fired, just relieved of command and transferred elsewhere.

Yes, he was removed (fired) from his post because his troops were so badly defeated in the battle. Patton was assigned to take over.

raywest

22nd Jan 2018

Patton (1970)

Question: Did Patton really promise to control his temper before being assigned to the third army?

Answer: He most likely would have had to agree to monitor his temper and behavior and also his habit of making off-the-cuff, politically incorrect or politically charged remarks. He at times spoke or acted impulsively.

raywest

21st Jan 2018

Patton (1970)

Question: During the slapping, what did George mean when he said send him up to the front?

Answer: "The front" means the front line, i.e., where the enemy is being engaged. He's saying that since the soldier isn't physically injured, he should be fighting, not (as Patton sees it) being a coward and shirking his duty.

Answer: He meant that he intended to send the soldier back to his unit where the main fighting with the enemy is taking place. This is referred to as "the front."

raywest