News about Admiral Kimmel and Pearl Harbor

[FirstPappy]

Here's a link to an interesting story about Admiral Kimmel in the Washing Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21387-2000Oct6.html

[rhohltjr]

Great. Long time coming.
The real guilty ones were
Richmond(?) K. Turner,
George Marshal and I think
Stemson, but mostly RK. Turner.
D**N egotistical alcoholic jerk!
Yep, I read the book, " And I
was there."

[Rat Face]

Please see:
http://www.sperry-marine.com/pearl/dorn.htm

for the other side of the coin. The cover memo goes right to the point.

Rat Face

[FirstPappy]

Be sure to read this by a Navy Captain after you read the Dorn report:
http://www.milmag.com/Features/admkimmel.html

[Nikademus]

very interesting reading. i agree with the cover memo.

[Doug Olenick]

I agree with the conclusions drawn. Particularly the fact that the ships and airfields were not prepared to immediately defend themselves by, at least, having ammunition ready by the AA guns, if not having those guns partially manned.

The Army Air Corps. decision to defend against sabotage by lining up its aircraft on the airfield parking ramps is truly inexcusable, particularly in light of the fact that the field's air defenses were not set up.

I hope the families of Kimmel and Short and can live with the fact that their ancestors made some tremendous errors in judgement that costs several thousand lives.

[Rat Face]

Interesting articles flying about, eh?

My father was on the Nevada, but went stateside a couple weeks before 12/7/41. I've never asked for his opinion, maybe I should.

An old neighbor of mine used to air-out his clothes in his carport. One day someone stole it all. Whose fault was it?

Rat Face

"Hindsight is perfect."

[Paul Dyer]

Of all the material written about Pearl Harbour, I found Henry Clausen's "Pearl Harbour, Final Judgement" the most illuminating. Clausen was a civilian lawyer who had voluteered for war service. He was assigned to investigate with a carte balnche mandate, and spent three years doing so. Since his authority came from Stimson he interviewed many more army than naval personnel. The book resonates with a clear thinking legal mind, as he seeks to ask what information each party had and what they did or didn't do with it. His conclusions, finally published in 1992, were damming of the local commanders, though much more so of Short than Kimmel. None of the chain of command, including Marshall, escaped crticism entirely. The latest developments suggest that the title of his book was premature, and I suspect this debate will rage indefinitely.

[This message has been edited by Paul Dyer (edited October 15, 2000).]

[FirstPappy]

Re:Stole it ALL!

Wow stole the clothes and the carport... I lived in NYC before Guilianni became mayor and things were never that bad!

[mjmooney]

I really liked Costello's take on it in Days of Infamy--which shows the whole picture of the disasters in December..Underestimation of the Japaneese and overestimation of US/CW striking power in the far east. Also when political considerations override sound millitary judgement disaster tends to follow.

[Major Tom]

Everyone deserves their fair share of blame, but, Kimmel and Short were scapegoats. What they did was less criminal than what MacArthur did. The thought that Pearl was a target for anything other than sabotage was very rare. The US commanders didn't have the same access to information that the later ones did, plus they were working on a peace time system. To cause blame for the loss of life at Pearl on the heads of two commanders is to ignore the greater responsibility for the top commanders in Washington is to unjustly condemn. I would hazard to guess that NO other US commander would have done things much differently than Kimmel or Short. We and they are arguing totally on hindsight as well, any commander can say "well I would have done this rather than that", but they are mute points.

About the unpreparedness of the allies in assuming that the Japanese were totally incapable of posing a threat? I have to disagree about this. The RAF did MANY simulations on the ability to hold Malaya, and came up with the conclusion that no less than 500 planes would be required, and this was the number seen as barely able to maintain air-superiority. The forces in the Philippines were realized to be totally inadequate to complete the task assinged (they were hoping for a 1946 war, when they would have strong enough forces). The Dutch were also frantic in acquiring modern weaponry and were in a state of mobilizing their forces into a Military (over that of a governing) organization.

They knew that a war this early would spell disaster for their troops and bases in the front line. Had Pearl Harbor not occured, the war would not have been changed very much, at least for the first 6 months.

Jeremy

[emetcalf]

I'll vouch for that. Getting this back on topic, I ran a 2.1 game against the japanese computer, non historical. They never touched Pearl, but it's April 42 and the rest of the invasion is pretty much on schedule. The exception is Malaya; the units with dramatically upgraded experience have shut them down. However, they're out of supply, so their readiness is dropping, and I doubt they can hold out too much longer.

[wpurdom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Dyer:
Of all the material written about Pearl Harbour, I found Henry Clausen's "Pearl Harbour, Final Judgement" the most illuminating

People should hesitate to express opinions on this issue who have not read either Clausen's work or one of Gordon Prange's volumes. There is little question that Short was criminally negligent - given the "war warning" of November 27th, the planes didn't have be lined up so as to be practically disabled, the AA could have had ammo, the radar could have been manned, peacetime schedules could have been overridden.

General MacArthur in the Phillipines had a similar or perhaps greater degree of culpability to Short and much greater than that of Kimmel. After all his planes were caught on the ground hours after Pearl Harbor and the pre-war plan was to have them in the air attacking Taiwan. This is no defense of Short or Kimmel. As I recall 2000 USN personnel died in the attack. If you run over and kill someone with .12 grams % alcohol in your blood you're going to be perceived more harshly than someone who runs off the road with .25 grams % alcohol.

Kimmel's negligence was not near as bad as Short, but he had the premier command in the USN and more was rightly expected of him.

A carrier attack on Pearl was not out of the question. The USN had simulated successful CV attacks on Pearl in their own maneuvers, had noted the success of the British attack on Taranto with their pitiful Swordfish, and the possibility of a CV attack on Pearl Harbor was taken seriously prior to the summer of '41. After that everyone was mesmerized by the well-known Japanese plans against Southeast Asia.

Admirals Hart and Halsey showed the proper reaction to similar or less information than Kimmel was getting. Hart dispearsed his ships and reacted properly to the 11/27th warning. Halsey put the Enterprise group on war-time status in his ferrying operation to Midway. He certainly had much less info than Kimmel.

Kimmel had superior information to many of the people in Washington, particularly with regard to Japanese naval units. He was fully aware that the Japanese had done something usual with their 6 carriers and that while naval intelligence knew where virtually all other units were, the USN intelligence had no idea where the carriers were. This was extremely unusual. As he himself put it in his conversation with Layton "you mean they could be rounding Diamond Head right now."

Kimmel also had miniature Japanese subs being hunted in the harbor hours before the attack.

What would have been the effect of reasonably responses and precautions. Short could have actually had aircraft in the air, hopefully from radar readings, but at least after the attack began. How much better the fleet would have fared is more in question. Variation in fleet movements, so the Japanese could not count on the whole battle fleet being there, would have reduced losses substantially. The differences between the results of the 1st and 2nd wave attacks suggests that considerable mitigation of damage was possible. Better preparedness should have at least prevented the Oklahoma from capsizing and the California from sinking, oh so slowly. The clear negligence of Kimmel is the fact that he made no adjustments in schedules, reconnaisance, fleet movements and leave, or readiness level after receiving the November 27th 'war warning' that hostilities could commence at any moment. Nor did he consult in any manner with General Short on whom he was so dependent for air defense and recon or ask for any clarification from his superiors.

Certainly his superior Stark deserves some blame, and he received it. His failure to act as Marshall did to the Purple messages on the 7th and his failure to apprise lower commands of diplomatic developments until Marshall in contrast to Marshall insisting on the "war warning" message show a lack of leadership. He lost half his job and the confidence of the rest of the war leadership immediately with Admiral King becoming more and more dominant until Stark was eased out.

Naval officers from the outset have always had trouble with placing responsibility on Kimmel, but he should be left as the valuable object lesson he has been since that time. Their response in attempting to cast responsibility on General Marshall is without merit. Marshall had no responsibility for or authority over Naval commands; there was no unified command at that time. Marshall nevertheless was the one who saw that naval commands, including Kimmel, received the "war warning" message of November 27th that warned them that hostilities could commence at any moment. He was the one who finally reacted to the diplomatic intelligence of the 6th and the 7th. This is an area where he should have been able to count on Stark properly handling.

[This message has been edited by wpurdom (edited October 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by wpurdom (edited October 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by wpurdom (edited October 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by wpurdom (edited October 27, 2000).]

[Paul Dyer]

Nice post, wpurdom. The only bit I'm not sure of is how soom before the attack Kimmel got the news about the mini subs.

My sympathy for Short and Kimmel is limited to this: they were denied natural justice, in that they never got to reply to the charges (loose use of the word) against them. The right to face one's accusers and give your side of the story is a basic right. On those grounds alone they deserve to be left alone.

[rhohltjr]

I don't think the Kimmel family wants to be
"left alone" at least not yet. Maybe after
Adml Kimmel and Gen Short are reinstated to
their prewar ranks they will call it a draw.
Robert Hohlt, Jr.