Page 3 of 5

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:37 pm
by Yamato hugger
He who tries to defend everythign defends nothing.

You can only "plan" for realistic events. Subs were a "real" threat, and they did practially nothing. No ASW air patrols. 1 picket DD at the harbor entrance. You blame them for not planning on a CV attack when they couldnt even defend against a real threat? Should they have been relieved? You damn right. No question. But not because a CV force snuck and blasted them.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:37 pm
by RaidOne
I just finished reading Infamy by John Toland and the conclusion is that FDR, Marshall and others in Washington were to blame, not Short and especially not Kimmel, who kept asking for equipment to defend PH.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:42 pm
by mogami
Hi, No matter hwo you slice it they were both caught off guard by the attack.
We are not saying they had the material to defeat such an attack but they were caught by surprise. They were not ready to defend if the attack had arrived by banana boat's off loading chimps on uni-cycles or hot air balloons.
Now a man in command of several CV himself should have kind of had a faint glimmer that a hostile nation with 10 such beasts might be plotting a sneak attack just like the sneak attack the RN had pulled. (The Japanese have long been known for copy right infringments)

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:46 pm
by paullus99
Considering that Pearl respresented the single greatest concentration of American military power in the world, what else did he need to defend it with?

Seriously, just about everyone with a bit of intelligence (including Halsey) knew war with Japan was imminent - regardless, actions should have been taken to increase the preparedness of the facilities, ships & planes/pilots - and at least had active search planes out.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:51 pm
by Yamato hugger
Put yourself in Kimmels position. He didnt know what Washington knew. He knew the Japs were moving south into Indo-china. He knew there was all sorts of activity in the China Sea. He knew any serious Jap attack would have to come in the PI. He has Guam, Wake, Johnston, and Midway between him and the Jap fleet. He has subs and ships out here and there in likely areas of approach. All report nothing, and more importantly, no attacks on these forward bases. Should he have planned on a civil uprising by local Hawaiians wanting their homeland back as well? Same thing. Kimmel had no reason to believe there was a carrier threat to Pearl. Who in their right mind sends their only real means of waging war that far into the enemies rear area with no support? It wasnt a REALISTIC threat.

But, even at that. If he had defended against the real threat (which was subs), he PROBABLY would have detected the Japs (at the very least their aircraft) far enough away to allow the fleet to be alerted. That was his failure.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:54 pm
by ChezDaJez
Hi, They had sent PBY to Midway and Johnston. They were not flying because it was the weekend.
What would have happened if a USN plane or submarine had spotted the IJN CV (without the IJN knowing it)

The Japanese took great pains to avoid detection. Spotting the approaching fleet more than 24 hours in advance of the attack would have been virtually impossible IMO. Wake had no long range assetts and Midway had very few. Also don't forget that Japanese destroyers were able to approach Midway Island unseen 12 hours after the attack on PH and bombard. They weren't spotted until their signal lights were seen by Marine sentries at 1842 hours 7 December. Had we indeed spotted it 24 hours in advance, I don't think we could have maintained contact on their fleet without eventually alerting them. I don't think we would have tried to engage it without a declaration of war. But the loss of surprise might have caused the fleet to turn around.

Still, our most likely reaction would have been to sortie the fleet south to safety. It is highly unlikely the old BBs would have been sent to intercept the IJN fleet without supporting carriers or sufficient land-based air cover. PH had far fewer assetts available and and coordination was nil between the Army and Navy. Given the ineffectiveness of the Army pilots at Midway, it is highly improbable they would have been able to protect the fleet at sea. But at least CAP would have been up and AA guns manned and ready so we would have inflicted greater losses on the attackers. We probably would have launched loaded bombers with orders not to engage until ordered or attacked. Without the fleet in port, the Japanese would have likely concentrated on the repair and storage facilities, most likely destroying them. That might have been a bigger set back than what actually occurred.

I think that FDR and the military leaders expected an attack somewhere in the Pacific very soon but everyone, except MacArthur, was fixated on the idea that it would be in the Philippines. Given the prejudices of the day, most military men didn't think Japan had the ability to strike Pearl Harbor with carriers.

As far as Kimmel and Short go, they were scapegoats but like others have said, it was their responsibility to provide an adequate defense of the islands but being more concerned with sabotage, they failed to do so. MacArthur's failure to even disperse his aircraft was a monumental failure.


Chez

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:55 pm
by RaidOne
Actually it looks like Kimmel increased the readiness of the fleet well beyond what was achieved by his predecessor. It is true that a CV attack on PH was discussed in Japan, and it was known as a possibility in US, way before Dec 41, so no one is completely beyond guilt. But still Kimmel and Short did not received relevant information from higher up, that may have changed something.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:59 pm
by DeepSix
I think it's likely FDR knew or at least had the strongest suspicion that the Japanese would attack. I firmly believe he wanted it that way. Should they have expected it at Pearl Harbor? 60 years later, it's too easy to say yes. At the time, Manila and the Panama Canal were thought to be more at risk. In fact, in his book The Great Pacific War (published in 1925 mind you), Hector Bywater writes of the Japanese exploding and sinking a merchant vessel in the Panama Canal (and thus forcing its closure).

To put the entire weight of decades of isolationism on the shoulders of 1 admiral and 1 general is going too far, though, I think. But I feel that way based on the social and political climate of 2005, not that of sixty-four years ago. Dec. 7 was the result of a fatal combination of events, some large blunders, others small errors -- not unlike Sept. 11. The picture of what we should have known would happen is only so clear because we did not. If, for instance, the Japanese had indeed struck at Manila (as Bywater also wrote), or if the task force on it's way to Pearl Harbor had been detected, the entire course of the war and that of the rest of the 20th century would have been very different.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:59 pm
by mogami
Hi, OK it is like a bank guard being caught asleep by robbers and then saying "no one told me the bank was going to be robbed today"

Now say Ma Barker has been reported in the area with all her runts and she has Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson with her and your guard is still caught asleep and says "no one told me the bank was going to be robbed today"

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:06 pm
by donkuchi19
I'll give Kimmel some leeway because of the constrictions on his abilty to do anything but Short screwed up majorly. He could have done a lot more to protect his command. CAP, spread the planes out, search patterns. He could have done much more.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:09 pm
by RaidOne
:)
The Army and Navy were ordered to refrain from provoking the japs.
It's like the bank guard should personally check every customer to see if he has a pistol in his pocket. The guard is not there for deterring a pro, just to stop J. Doe who just got his credit trashed.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:11 pm
by mogami
Hi, Please explain how anything done inside a US Military base is provoking the Japanese?
Provoking would be sending the BB to 300 miles off Tokyo.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:23 pm
by ChezDaJez
If, for instance, the Japanese had indeed struck at Manila (as Bywater also wrote), or if the task force on it's way to Pearl Harbor had been detected, the entire course of the war and that of the rest of the 20th century would have been very different.

Let's not forget that we also milked the "sneak" attack angle to inflame public opinion. The fact that the Japanese were in the process of breaking diplomatic relations at the time of the attack was withheld from the public. If the Japanese had actually delivered a declaration of war prior to the attack, I don't think we would have seen quite the patriotic fervor for unconditional surrender that was present. And assuming that the war went badly for us (i.e. defeats at Midway and Guadalcanal, etc...) into 1943, it's quite possible that a negotiated peace may have been attempted.

But lucky for us, the Japanese had a history of attacking without a declaration of war and the rest is history.

Chez

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:25 pm
by Yamato hugger
I'll give Kimmel some leeway because of the constrictions on his abilty to do anything but Short screwed up majorly. He could have done a lot more to protect his command. CAP, spread the planes out, search patterns. He could have done much more.

Kimmel is just as much to blame for not having scouts out. There were more PBYs at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 than at any other base in the world. AND it was the Navy's job to conduct ASW patrols, not the Army. Thats Kimmel. No one else to blame there. And as I have said before, if there had been ASW aircraft up and searching (a sub had been sunk 2 hours prior to the attack) they probably would have spotted the inbound Jap aircraft. A sub is sunk right outside your harbor!! Why dont you put search aircraft out? Kimmel relieved? You damn right.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:39 pm
by Williamb
The whole problem was the "yellow Peril" think of the 1920s and 1930s that believed that the "Yellow" man was inferior to the white man.

We sent B17 bombers to Phillipines claiming that " the biggest bomber force in the world will bring the Japanese to their knees"

We sent BBs to Pearl because the BB was the "Ultimate" navy weapon.

We were so ready to fight WWII like it was WWI.

Its the old Military Axiom that you can learn more from defeat then victory IF you learn the right lessons.

after Dec 7th we learn the right lessons. Before then we had only our superior arrogant beliefs.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:13 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
If, for instance, the Japanese had indeed struck at Manila (as Bywater also wrote), or if the task force on it's way to Pearl Harbor had been detected, the entire course of the war and that of the rest of the 20th century would have been very different.

Let's not forget that we also milked the "sneak" attack angle to inflame public opinion. The fact that the Japanese were in the process of breaking diplomatic relations at the time of the attack was withheld from the public. If the Japanese had actually delivered a declaration of war prior to the attack, I don't think we would have seen quite the patriotic fervor for unconditional surrender that was present. And assuming that the war went badly for us (i.e. defeats at Midway and Guadalcanal, etc...) into 1943, it's quite possible that a negotiated peace may have been attempted.

But lucky for us, the Japanese had a history of attacking without a declaration of war and the rest is history.

Chez

No offense, but how did we "milk" the sneak attack angle? Do you really think that the US would have been less pissed off if Japan had declared war an hour prior to the attack? Who would have said to himself, "Well I'll ignore the months of planning and preparation that went into the attack, the fact that they had to sail over a week in advance to attack PH, all the while the governments were still negotiating, they declared war before they attacked, so I'm not angry at them"?

Japan did have a history of attacking w/o a dow, another reason, besides it being their jobs, for Kimmel and Short to be on guard.

Somewhat on topic, the naval commandant for the PH district, Bloch, never gets ripped much during these arguments.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:15 pm
by ChezDaJez
This puts things in good perspective. The full text is at:

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/intel ... harbor.htm

It is important to emphasize the lack of any formal distribution procedures to inform responsible fleet commanders of the intelligence information being gleaned from decrypts of Japanese communications. In the Navy, this was complicated by the self appointed intelligence expert of then Captain Richmond K. Turner known as “Terrible Turner”, the new head of the Navy’s War Plans department of CNO. The weakness of Admiral Stark as CNO let Turner completely usurp the functions of ONI and DNC to fulfill their responsibilities to properly warn fleet commanders of the impending Japanese actions based on the Purple diplomatic decrypts and other indicators. More serious war warning messages and a more accurate picture of the current situation as indicated by Japanese decrypts that were advocated by Captain Laurence Stafford as OP-20-G, Admiral Noyes DNC, and the acting Director of Intelligence (DNI), Captain Kirk, were forestalled or greatly watered down by Turner. One excuse Turner tried to give for such perfunctory warnings was that Pearl Harbor had all the Japanese diplomatic decrypts, which was false. Earlier, Captain Turner was convinced Japan would only attack Russia and just before Pearl Harbor he convinced Stark that Japan was not ready to attack the U.S. only the British. The new DNI Theodore S. Wilkinson refused to challenge Turner’s rebuff of a further specific war warning drafted by Captain Arthur H. McCollum on 5 December. Again on 6 December, Stafford tried again but was dismissed by Noyes so as not to antagonize Turner. On the Army side, General George G. Marshall and intermediaries vetoed similar requests made by Colonels Rufus S. Bratton and Otis K. Sadtler. Later, Marshall denied receiving the related decrypts. As Washington politics go, both Stafford, Bratton and Sadtler were relegated to rather minor posts and discredited, while Noyes and Turner were given prime advancement billets and promotions. Although General Marshall was held to have been derelict in his duties by the first Army board of inquiry on the Pearl Harbor attack, the subsequent congressional investigation only found Admiral Kimmel and General Short at fault for the Pearl Harbor disaster. Marshall had the backing of both Secretary of War Stimson and President Roosevelt. Stimson instigated a fierce campaign to reverse Marshall’s prior dereliction finding. During the latter hearings, none of Turner’s subordinates would break ranks and reveal Turner’s derelictions due to his great wartime achievements and rank as Vice Admiral. Only subsequent revelations have verified Turner’s and Marshall’s responsibility for impeding more appropriate and timely warnings urged by intelligence professionals based on Purple decrypts.

Chez

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:23 pm
by RUPD3658
I wonder if 60 years from now we will still be debating who was at fault for September 11th as passionatly as we can debate this subject.

It just goes to show that politics never change. We tend to think of our leaders from this time period as infallible and god-like yet they were no different then the ones we have today.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:30 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: William Amos

The whole problem was the "yellow Peril" think of the 1920s and 1930s that believed that the "Yellow" man was inferior to the white man.

We sent B17 bombers to Phillipines claiming that " the biggest bomber force in the world will bring the Japanese to their knees"

We sent BBs to Pearl because the BB was the "Ultimate" navy weapon.

We were so ready to fight WWII like it was WWI.

Its the old Military Axiom that you can learn more from defeat then victory IF you learn the right lessons.

after Dec 7th we learn the right lessons. Before then we had only our superior arrogant beliefs.

There were a lot more problems than just the yellow peril.

Putting a large B17 force in the PI was a deterrent. Inflated opinions as to the effectiveness of it may have let to an overestimation of that deterrent, but I don't remember anyone saying it would bring Japan to their knees, unless it was Hopkins or someone like that. Even then, I would imagine that was never put on record.

As to fighting WWII like WWI means, I don't really know that means. We didn't fight in the Pacific in WWI. Changes in mechanization, naval aviation, land-based aviation and their respective doctrines alone meant that WWII couldn't not be fought like WWI.

About all we learned on Dec. 7 was to maintain adequate recon around ports during peacetime, not let our ships get bombed in port, don't park aircraft in line and don't be afraid of using the phone in emergencies.

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:08 pm
by VicKevlar
Moving on up to General forum.....