Talk:Lloyd Fredendall

Gotta Wonder

Not sure if the information is already out there but what is even more interesting is that Lloyd Fredendall was promoted to Lt. General after he came back stateside from North Africa. Is that how they reward screw-ups? I think not. I wonder if maybe Ossad and D’Este didn’t do all their homework before they formed their opinions regarding Fredendall’s suitability for command. Tomcat1949 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation is based on wholesale assumptions learned in present-day civilian society, not on a historical analysis of the facts concerning U.S. Army high command promotion policies during World War II. This was a time when corps-level and higher officers all remembered their mutual years of service since WWI during the lean years of peacetime posts and assignments with only rare promotions. Unless formally relieved of command and demoted in grade, Fredendall was still eligible for advancement in rank upon his next assignment. Since Eisenhower camouflaged the relief as a replacement as well as a reassignment, and did not communicate a desire to either President Roosevelt (who was given a report on Fredendall by Eisenhower's aide) or to General Marshall (who personally liked Fredendall) that Fredendall's career be terminated, he was duly given a training assignment in line with Eisenhower's formal advice to do so, and advanced in rank in conformance with the expected rank of a senior general appointed to command an Army (Second Army, with a capital 'A'). Most historians believe that Eisenhower's later actions with Patton and other subordinates strongly indicate that he realized he had made a mistake in allowing Fredendall to escape punishment and demotion. LKH (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they did their homework. They are not the only ones of this opinion, Blumenson was one. He was apparently a good trainer, perhaps they still wanted to utilize those skills, but that's speculation. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

'Poor Guy' - Or Deserved Criticism?

Given that Lloyd Fredendall didn't have what it took to lead a major combat command in the Second World War, he must have had something going for him to make it to general in the U.S. army. "Mediocre and inadequate" isn't the same as "a cowardly son of a bitch." Also, using real quotes that are this inflammatory makes it all the more desirable to have specific citations (I've read d'Estes' book, actually). Cranston Lamont 17:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sympathy is misplaced. Fredendall was promoted after the Kasserine Pass debacle, and was given a stateside training command. He largely escaped public censure and criticism for his actions until after his death. 'Poor Guy' would more logically refer to one of the 1,000+ soldiers killed at Kasserine who still lie in overseas cemeteries as a result of Fredendall's incompetence as a commander. One must remember that it was not only his poor leadership before Kasserine that is on trial. At the height of the Kasserine crisis, Fredendall 'froze', i.e., ceased to function as a corps commander; only the intervention of visiting General Harmon and the other Allied commanders manage to stem the German advance and halt the rout of American forces. "Mediocre and inadequate" and "cowardly son of a bitch" are not mutually exclusive character traits - they can all be found in one individual. How else would you describe a corps commander who almost continually remained in an underground bunker (so deep it took 200 men weeks to blast out of solid rock) a full 70 miles behind the lines, during a time of fluid mechanized warfare? Even Eisenhower, after viewing the bunker, pointedly reminded his commanders that "Generals are expendable just as is any other item in an army." You assume that Fredendall must have had 'something' going for him to make it to general in the U.S. Army, and he did - the friendship of higher-level commanders, namely Generals George C. Marshall and Lesley McNair, who seem to have based their conclusions not on combat leadership experience (which does not seem to have been highly prized prior to WWII) but rather on Fredendall's scores at Staff Command College, as well as surface characteristics and demeanor: McNair had included Fredendall on a list of the top three generals he believed capable of commanding all U.S. Army forces being sent to Great Britain. Marshall in turn had recommended the swaggering Fredendall to General Dwight D. Eisenhower for a major command in the American invasion of North Africa during Operation Torch. Marshall was especially fond of the youthful-looking, cocky Fredendall, describing him as "one of the best" and remarking in a staff meeting when his name was mentioned, "I like that man; you can see determination all over his face." LKH (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know specifically why he rose so high, but we all know there are guys who look like great soldiers in peacetime who prove to be useless as soon as they are under fire, and vice/versa. DMorpheus 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents in agreement - he must have had SOME positive quality to rise that high. It would be nice to know more about the man. - O^O

In (belated) response to the request for specific citations, I've added a References section with an entry for D'Este's book. I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia's citation system -- I've read the relevant help pages, but they're more interested in how than what -- so it may not be correct. If anyone wants to know, the quote is from p. 459. --VAcharon 04:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to find much info on him beyond his ineptness as a commander during the Africa campaign. It was obvious he was terrible at commanding during combat. Maybe he was a good staff officer, military trainer, or administrator. Azn Clayjar 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From the limited information about him on the internet it seems he was considered a good planner. He was on General Perhing's staff in WW1 so that is likely how he got his start to be put in such a higher command. I found a little more about his career:

 1907 - commissioned.
 1938 - commanding officer, 57th Infantry Regiment (Phillipines).
 1938-1939 - exec. officer to to Chief of Infantry
 12/1939 - Brigadier General
 1940 - 5th Infantry Division
 10/1940 - Major General
 1941 Commanding General, 4th Division (Fort Benning, GA)
 late 1941 to 1942 - Commanding General, II Army Corps (Fort Jay, NY)
 09/1942 - Commanding General, XI Army Corps [redesignated 19.08.1942: XI Corps] (Chicago, IL)
 10/1942 - 03/1943 - Commanding General, II Corps (North Africa) & Commanding General, Central Task Force, Operation Torch, North Africa (11.1942)
 03/1943 - 04/1943 - Deputy Commander, Second Army (Fort George C. Mead, MD)
 01.06.1943 (retd 31.03.1946; disability

I will add this to a military infobox when I get the information more organized. He did receive a DSM. One should consider he was born Dec 28, 1883. By the time of Pearl Harbor he was 58 years old. In all honesty he was a little long in the tooth for the assignment he was given. There's a big gap of information about him from his commission until 1938. My guess is during WW1 when he had been in the military about 10 years this was his prime time. Since he was a career man he defended the country during the inter war years. I think the article needs a lot more balance because it does not seem neutral POV. The only reason I contributed in the past to the article is because he was a commanding general of the Second Army. There was a dearth of information on the Second Army and I was trying to fill in some gaps.

We cannot forget that it was Ike who selected Fredendall for the position in N.A. and later it took many people to complaint to Ike directly before he removed him. The same troops Fredendall commanded were the ones PAtton took and turned around. If you consider his carerr stated above I think the problem was in putting Fredendall in II Corps for a year, moving him to XI Corps briefly and then back to II Corps. It seems like a bad move to make and it would be interesting to see why he was taken out and put back. Maybe they had an even worse commander of II Corps in the interim. Mfields1 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help, there's an interesting article here about II Corps' commanders. "The average age of officers upon assuming corps command during the war was fifty-three, though it tended to be slightly older in the Pacific. The oldest corps commander, Innis P. Swift, was sixty-two when he commanded First Corps in the Pacific in 1944." It mentions that Fredendall was the first of six corps commanders to be relieved during the war. In this article in Time Magazine from November 1942 he is described as "quiet, 58-year-old Major General Lloyd R. Fredendall, expert at military details. During World War I he served as a staff assistant to General John J. Pershing. His last job before this one was as chief of the XI Army Corps, at Chicago." There's a more flattering shot of him here and a thorough but dry biography. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious what happened here. The first major clash between U.S. and German troops was bound to be embarassing for the U.S., for reasons beyond the control of any one commander. All intelligent generals would have foreseen this, and no ambitious general would have wanted such a command. Fredenall was not punished for his failure because every other U.S. commander privately sympathised with him. Drutt (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Harmon

During World War II, General Harmon served as Commanding General of the 1st Armored Division in Tunisia and Italy. After the capture of Rome, he returned to the United States as a corps commander. He returned to command the 2nd Armored Division in 1944 before being named XXII Corps Commander.

In regards to Fredendall gaining great responsibility in the army, you have to understand promotions were by seniority up until this point. Patton was a Colonel commanding a Brigade in 1940 after 31 years in uniform. Ike (and George Marshall in particular) was credited with being ruthless and quick about weeding out the incompetent leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave1y (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was the whole Fredendall episode that probably *made* Ike ruthless about removing poor commanders. Reading some of his communications during and after this, one gets the sense he felt he acted much too slowly before relieving Fredendall. He didn't make that mistake many more times. In fact, Gavin was critical, later in the war, of how SHAEF tended to act too quickly to relieve underperforming commanders. DMorpheus (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello , I translated this article into french for WP fr

mainly because I sometimes heard my father say " The Rosbifs ( = the Brittons ) and we Free French took some bashes into our faces at Sidi Bouzid and Kasserine , but the GIs , poor lads , what a downing did they get !..." . I should like we could say we have an article as strong as this one ( we call that "une volée de bois vert" = a battering with green saps ) about our Général Maurice Gamelin ! ( our chief officer , who , with the help of communist saboteurs , has been responsible for our rout in 40 ...). However , LF must have had some qualities whatever , but ... Personnally I should like to know : what was he doing in Philippines in 36-38 : was he a colonel ? ; and the 57° Régiment : were they Marines ? As for his titles after he was sent back to the US : " General Officer Commander in Chief" : what could that amount to in Europe , three-stars general , or even Marshall ? No so high , I hope ...Here , we just now have a fine TV docu. : "The War" by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick , in which you can see veterans of Tunisia Campaign ( who even were after that in Italy or in the Ardennes !...) saying they remember that LF was very glad about his dug-out " because radio reception was so much better than in the open ..." . Anyway I notice that it took a full month for Ike to react and weed LF away ...Bye-bye , thanks to the author(s) , and for the answers ... signé Arapaima,a french user --91.172.235.51 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I remember it, he was promoted to 3 stars (Lt. Gen.) after Kasserine and sent back to the states. No further promotions. Check out the recent book "An Army at Dawn" if its available to you (I'm not sure if it was translated, it won the American pulitzer prize, so it might well have). Very American-centric, but Fredendal is featured. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just watched Ken Burns' The War the other day. Where the accounts said that Fredendall stayed in his well-fortified CP "for better communication". For that and the fact that he almost never went up to the front, accounts referred to him as a coward. MuZemike 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answers, JWY ,MuZemike, & W.B. Wilson (cf answer on your DP, WBW) .T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (looks like back in 2008, I was unable to log in...I've bettered myself, but not enough ;-)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lloyd Fredendall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060611212036/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Berlin2/BERLIN2.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Berlin2/BERLIN2.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)