Believe it or not, two separate incidents were the catalyst for Patton's reduction of responsibilities during the middle of WWII. To understand the motivation behind Patton's actions, let's revisit a directive that he issued to the Seventh Army, "It has come to my attention that a very small number of soldiers are going to the hospital on the pretext that they are nervously incapable of combat. Such men are cowards and bring discredit on the army and disgrace to their comrades, whom they heartlessly leave to endure the dangers of battle while they, themselves, use the hospital as a means of escape. You will take measures to see that such cases are not sent to the hospital but dealt with in their units. Those who are not willing to fight will be tried by court martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy." General George S. Patton - August 5th, 1943
You can clearly see that Patton's view on soldiers claiming "nerves" as a reason to get out of combat was in his view, a result of lesser men shirking their responsibilities, not only as a man, but as an American soldier. Patton was firmly convinced that the American soldier was the premier warrior in the world and that these men were not only discrediting themselves, but the American soldier by their actions. Patton was not alone in this belief. Major General John P. Lucas had this to say about this growing medical condition, "There are always a certain number of such weaklings in any Army, and I suppose the modern doctor is correct in classifying them as ill . . . However, the man with malaria doesn't pass his condition on to his comrades as rapidly as does the man with nerves nor does malaria have the lethal effect that the latter has."
Another reason for Patton's passionate reaction to "nerves" in his soldiers was his belief that this condition could quickly erode the fear and reputation that he had built up among his men. Patton was a hard-driving man, not only on himself but also on others. It almost impossible to quantify the effect of allowing men under his command to leave their posts and fellow soldiers, simply because of their fear of combat. Patton rightly deduced that his men needed to fear him more than they feared the enemy and this style of leadership allowed him to achieve results that few other commanders could achieve. This was the reason that the Germans were convinced throughout the entire WWII that Patton was the greatest American general and would lead the major campaigns in Europe and Africa. In fact, General Eisenhower used this German belief in disguising the true objectives of the Allied Forces several times in the war.
General Patton was touring a field hospital on August 3rd, 1943 when he was confronted with a soldier who appeared physically uninjured. Patton inquired about his injuries and upon hearing the diagnosis of "nerves", slapped the soldier in question and drug him out of the tent. He demanded that this coward be immediately transported to the front. Major Lucas (see above for his opinion on this medical condition) was with Patton during this visit and noted nothing remarkable about the treatment of the soldier. The second incident occurred on August 10th, 1943. Patton was again touring a field hospital and came upon a man shivering at the side of his bed. Asking the soldier what was his diagnosis, the soldier replied, "It's my nerves, I just can't stand the shelling anymore." Patton became enraged and started slapping him across the face, knocking his helmet off. Patton started yelling, "You're going back to the front lines and you may get shot and you may get killed, but you're going to fight. If you don't I'll stand you up against a wall and have a firing squad kill you on purpose. In fact, I ought to shoot you myself . . . " Patton then drew his pistol and the hospital staff quickly separated the General and the coward.
Because of these two incidents, confronting cowards in his army in the only way he deemed correct, General Patton was sidelined from the war by General Eisenhower. Despite his recent victory in Messina, Patton did not command a force for over 11 months.
How to make sense of this decision to render our best general impotent in this global conflict? First, Eisenhower did not think Patton was his best general. He did consider him invaluable to the war but judged his lack of self-control and inability to exercise discipline as fatal flaws in his ability to command. Eisenhower was not blind to Patton's skill as a ground commander, in fact, in a private letter to General George Marshall he recommended Patton for promotion to four-star general, less than a month after the slapping incidents in August. In this letter he also remarked on Patton's ability to motivate men like no other commander he had ever seen and admitted that he had a "driving power" that General Bradley lacked.
Yet Eisenhower believed that Bradley possessed two of the traits that a theater-level strategic command required, and that Patton conspicuously lacked: a calm, reasoned demeanor, and a meticulously consistent nature. It's easy to armchair quarterback this decision, mainly because in combat Patton was clearly the superior leader. He was imaginative, fearless, ruthless and never retreated from a fight, despite the odds. All of these traits were the reason Patton, and only Patton, responded to Eisenhower's request for a rescue plan of General McAuliffe's forces during the Battle of the Bulge. Eisenhower had asked his Generals who could formulate such a plan and implement this plan in less than 72 hours. American General Anthony McAuliffe's army was surrounded by German forces and yet General McAuliffe responded to German requests to surrender with the one word reply, "Nuts". Only General Patton responded to this challenge. "I can have two divisions at the Battle in less than 48 hours" Patton announced. All the other generals present were in disbelief. It was impossible to plan an attack in that short of a time, not to mention implementing the plans and moving the soldiers across enemy territory.
Yet Patton alone had the imagination, planning and will to move two divisions in less than 48 hours across enemy controlled, winter terrain. In fact, General Patton's 4th Armored Division punched a hole through the German forces and rescued the General McAuliffe's forces, in less than the 48 hour window Patton had promised.
I submit that Eisenhower on a personal level didn't want the accompanying baggage that came with Patton's leadership. He took the easy path of only relying upon those commanders that he could control, instead of utilizing the most talented commander at his disposal. Were there elements of Patton's personality that rubbed Eisenhower the wrong way. Of course. Did Patton always follow the rules? No. Did he improvise while in battle conditions? Yes. Was there a better American commander to fight the Axis forces in WWII? No. A true leader doesn't let conflict sideline his best talent. He works the problem, bends the rules, establishes a way of ensuring that this person is given the tools to succeed and gets out of the way.
WWII would have looked a lot different if Patton had not been sidelined for almost a year, given control of the Allied Forces in Europe, and been listened to regarding the Russian threat after Germany surrendered its forces.
Leadership is not taking the path of least resistance. Leadership is recognizing the talent available to you and making the most of each person's unique skill set available to meet your objectives. I submit that General Eisenhower treated Patton with a legalistic style of leadership rather than making the most of the greatest American General in WWII.
