If Patton was fired for his language would it effect the course of the war?

If this is in the wrong spot I appologise.

My friend just posted a meme on FB that claims if we fired patton we would have lost the war. My hunch is that it is blatantly false but I want help proving it and this site is the best site I know of full of people that know more about WWII than I do.

Anyone wanna help me out?

I know with regards to the releif of Bastogne would have been different and maybe hitler would call the allies bluff with that phony army across from calai (doubtful) but there anything else?
 

Deleted member 1487

Basically very little changed, even Bastogne. In fact it is likely Patton had his staff lie about how big the casualties they inflicted on the Germans were. He was a media hound and blowhard, his loss wouldn't change much if anything.
 
Basically very little changed, even Bastogne. In fact it is likely Patton had his staff lie about how big the casualties they inflicted on the Germans were. He was a media hound and blowhard, his loss wouldn't change much if anything.

Put Fredendall in place for the Cobra breakout.

Race across France becomes a stumble across France
And I'm sure you have cites for German Formations magically disappearing in front of 3rd Army?
How do you think the Falaise Pocket happened?
6248868_orig.jpg
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Put Fredendall in place for the Cobra breakout.

Race across France becomes a stumble across France
And I'm sure you have cites for German Formations magically disappearing in front of 3rd Army?
Wasn't he out of field command by that point?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Fredendall
Yes he was, replaced by Patton. I think the POD is Patton still replaces him (someone else would if not, Fredenhall was not staying in command after Kasserine) and is removed later. Not sure who is promoted to replace him, but by the time Italy is invaded a lot of the dead wood is gone and anyone moved up would be competent to do the job in 1944 in France.
 

Genghis

Banned
Firing patton would made things more bloody but it wouldnt lead to USA losing war. Patton had the aggresive spirit and tactics and essentially used sort of German tactic against german and it worked.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Wasn't he out of field command by that point?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Fredendall
Yes he was, replaced by Patton. I think the POD is Patton still replaces him (someone else would if not, Fredenhall was not staying in command after Kasserine) and is removed later. Not sure who is promoted to replace him, but by the time Italy is invaded a lot of the dead wood is gone and anyone moved up would be competent to do the job in 1944 in France.

Wouldn't it be one of the other division commanders in North Africa?
 
Since Truscott is likely to be unavailable

Depends on the timing; Truscott might get a Corps Command post Salerno, and avoid Anzio.

Given his earlier work with Combined Ops in the UK, he is an obvious choice for being involved in the Normandy Landings, probably replacing Hodges.
 
... Truscott ... is an obvious choice for being involved in the Normandy Landings, probably replacing Hodges.

That has implications for the Ardennes offensive in December. The 'suprise' of the German offensive can be traced in part to US 1st Army G2 & further in Hodges command style. ie: 1st Army was not using the OSS & in October invited the OSS liasion to depart its HQ. Or that 1st army G2 was over reliant of ULTRA sourced material to the point where it was not using material generated by the Corps & Division G2. In theory it is possible a Truscott led 1st Army might have recognized the Germans were up to something & been less off balance 16th Dec.
 
Nicely nudges the question to which generals SHOULD have been fired?

Does Hodges have any redeeming features?
 
Would Patton being fired have an impact? Certainly - both negative and positive, potentially.

Would Patton being fired impact the OUTCOME OF THE WAR? No. You could put me in Ike's job and not impact the OUTCOME.
 
Top