Evening star., 1943-11-26
|ArnySiIence
ION Putton's
Case Queried
By JAMES MARROW and
GEORGE ZIELKE.

Ine faltertng way In which the
story OF 1t. Gen. George s. Pat.
toms soldier-slapping episode BE-.
came public has brought into focus
two sharp questions on the War
Departments policy Of giving out
news:
!. To what extent-and for how
lons-is the Department justified
IN hushing up an unpleasant cpl
sode on grounds that publication
might give aid and comfort to the
enemy?
2. Are there other instances-or
will there be-of the same kind Of
news strangulation involved In tho
Patton story?
A central point at issue is what
Is security" and what isn't.
No one has contended that the
Army or Navy should make public
any information when It's publica-
ton would threaten the security Of
the Nation or the lives Of its tight.
ers. But reporters, anxious to pro.
tect the interests Of the country,
feel obligated to make known as
much information as it's possible to
tell.
Called Soldier yellow"
Here is the background Of tho
Patton incident:
On August 10, during the Sicilian
campaign in which he commanded
the 7th Army, Gen. Patton visited q
hospital, consoled wounded troops
and saw shell-shocked soldier
sobbing on the side Of q bed.
When the soldier told Gen. Patton
the front-line shelling had cracked
his nerves, the general. slapped the
man on the back Of the head, called
him yellow" and ordered him back
to the front. Hospital attaches In.
tervened.
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower heard
Of the occurrence and rebuked Gen.
Patton. The latter apologized to the
soldier, the hospital staff and his
troops in the field.
Reporters covering the Sicilian In.
vasion got the story. They were told
by Gen. Eisenhower that Army CEN
sorship would not stop their sending
1t back to the United States, but
that he believed its publication
would be Of value to the enemy.
Reporters Held Story.
The correspondents, taking Gen.
Eisenhower's word as to the effect
publication would have, agreed not
to send the story.
Months passed. Some reporters,
returning to this country on leave.
discussed the incident among
friends, but the story still was not
printed. BY word of mouth the
story got around in this country.
Drew Pearson, newspaper colum.
mist and radio commentator, heard
1t. He says he wrote the story,
cleared it through the Once Of
Censorship and consulted high
War Department of'icials" who told
him to use his own Judgment as to
releasing it. He broadcast it last
Sunday night.
Thus the field correspondents, who
had obtained the story last summer
but still held it out of respect for
Gen. Eisenhower's opinion that the
enemy would benefit by its release,
were left in the lurch.
Correspondents Hindered.
Although high War Department
omcials, according to Mr.. Pearson's
statement, knew he contemplated
using the story, the field CORE
spondents not only were not aided
in finally clearing it after the Pear
son broadcast, but for while were
definitely hindered.
After the broadcast, American
news services checked back to Allied
headquarters In Algiers and received
an oncial announcement which was
In effect a denial. In addition, Army
censorship in Algiers suddenly
clamped down, despite what Gen.
Eisenhower said months ago, and
refused to let the Patton story out.
The next day headquarters did an
about face and released the story sa
hours after Mr.. Pearson's broad.
cast.
1t appears questionable whether
the War Department ever intended
to make public the Patton episode
on its own volition.
So long as the story was kept
quiet, the department was saved EN-.
barraSsment.