Specifically, I am wondering what is the name of the cowardly soldier whom General Patton slapped in the hospital and what became of him. I would hope that he became a good good soldier and went on to become a great man. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
2006-07-30 15:44:42 · 6 answers · asked by juggernaut 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There were two incidents beginning Aug '44. Patton & medical officer came upon an apparently unwounded man in an Aid Station. Patton slapped him and then issued a Divisional order to the effect that he did not recognoze battle fatigue as a reason for removal from the line. This man had Chronic Dysentary and Malaria so his "wonds" were not evident. The second slapping incident is where he struck a soldier and unholstered his revolver waving it about in the hospital at the man stating that he wished to shoot the man himself.
Among other results, Patton had to issue a full apology in front of his troops. It cost him much in his career.
An officer striking an enlisted man, not in his direct command, and not in combat showed very poor judgement.
He was an emotional and sensitive man, and the thougth of showing cowardice (his own definition of it) was beyond his ability to bear when surrounded by the other grossly disfigured battle casualties.
I know of no evidence that they were better or worse off for the incident(s).
War is about physical violence, and the incidents were blown out of proportion in terms of their actual outcome. It is no where near the same set of circumstances as an authority figure slapping a child in the safe circumstances of the civilian world.
2006-07-30 16:05:40 · answer #1 · answered by electricpole 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, I don't know his name, but do know something about the incident....
The act of slapping, and shouting a "shellshocked" soldier was actually an accepted method of gettin him to "snap out of it" The only thing, is that the method is for use only after diagnosis. I suspect it's where we got the term "a slap in the face" to mean being snapped back into reality.
I dunno if it was a convenient explanation to defend patton, or if that's the truth of why he did it. If my understanding's right, Patton did'nt have the whole story on the guy, so the defense was weak. The guy may have been a brave but traumatized man, or he may've lacked nerve.
2006-07-31 05:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Private Charles H. Kuhl was suffering from Battle fatigue, I don't know what ever happened to him.
Then there was
Private Paul G. Bennett who told Patton his nerves were shot and couldn't take the shelling. Patton went berserk and threatened to shoot him, but only ended up punching him in the head a couple of times.
2006-07-30 22:56:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've read plenty of books about him- the most damning was a book by a tank commander in the 3rd Army's 4th Armored Div. who relates a "suicide mission" ordered by Patton to save his POW son-in-law...the mission was a wash, all men lost and an embarrassement to Patton-
the man was an egotistal NUT...but a great general...
2006-07-30 22:49:37 · answer #4 · answered by R J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ive been under fire more times than i care to remember , i think PTS is just a free ride out of action , if ya cant take the heat stay in the rear with the gear
2006-07-31 10:47:36 · answer #5 · answered by Hippie Hunter 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How many combat zones and firefights have you been in?
How much stress have you been under from someone trying to constantly kill you?
How many times has your life been in imminent danger?
That man was no coward. He had battle fatigue.. a condition not understood at the time.. what we now call post traumatic stress disorder. Don't call a man a coward till you've walked in his shoes and experienced his life.
2006-07-30 23:04:56 · answer #6 · answered by chuckufarley2a 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋