Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 7:21:46 PM   
waynec


Posts: 299
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Colorado, littleton
Status: offline
quote:

Hi, Well the ships would have been out of port and the AA guns in port would have been loaded and waiting and fighters up. I don't see the Japanese sinking anything.

Even if search planes had not spotted the IJN when asked "Did you have search planes out" Kimmel and Short could have answered "yes"


I agree about the fighters being up and aa guns manned. the japanese would have lost more planes. i wonder if the japanes would have bombed the tank farms or the dockyards and other port facilities if the battleships w/ their cruisers and destroyers were at sea. if the ships were far enough out and not spotted they may have been okay. had they been close in would the japanese changed their attack to go after the fleet? and would the army have provided air cover or been more concerned with defending their own bases? given the initial floatpalne flying over pearl signals the fleet is gone and there are no carriers, would nagumo started a search for the fleet or withdrawn to the north out of danger? interesting to discuss.

pearl harbor alternate history article




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

If the little things annoy you, maybe that's because the big things are going well.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 31
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 7:24:46 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
Guilty

First because it was their responisbility and they failed. Sometimes I am captain of a 32' sailboat, when I am its my responsibility period end. Pearl was their responsibility and they got suprised and smashed.

Second (and I wish I could remember the title of the book) a fair amount of work done by Short or Kimmels (can't remember which) predicessor on how to guard against a Japanese CV attack that Short or Kimmel chose not to read. Instead on the way out to Pearl he read a novel. Kimmel did not provide Short with all the intelligence he had available either.

There was more confusion and screw ups than their should have been in an area under that much threat. This was true elsewhere in American territory as well. Its ironic that the locations that were really ready to meet the Japanese were Wake an Midway which were low value targets but the high value targets of Pearl and Clark were suprised (Pearl) or complacent (Clark).

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 32
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 7:24:50 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I feel that they were both derelict in their duty by not having both long range air search patrols and local CAP up at the time. While they didn't have enough a/c to perform a thorough search, it appears that they didn't have any up that morning (please prove me wrong here). Not having any CAP up at all after the war warnings was gross dereliction IMO.

Short was a fool to group the a/c the way he did. He had plenty of soldiers, so if he was worried about sabotage he should have vastly increased the guard while keeping the a/c in wartime dispersal patterns.

As far as the Philippine Air Forces are concerned, I believe that the case was that they were in the process of landing and refueling from early patrols when they were hit. The weather over the Japanese bases delayed the JApanese strike, and the ensuing strike just happened to coincide with the need to refuel US aircraft. Most of you know me as a MacArthur hater, so please understand that I am not trying to support him on pronciple - I just believe in being fair.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 33
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 7:30:02 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, While having a BB sunk at sea would be worse it is also much harder to hit a moving BB surrounded by escorts. (The only Allied BB sunk by air attack in all of WWII were POW and Repulse and they were hit by a large strike that knew where they were)
Kates armed with bombs for airfield attack are not going to hurt them. Vals did not hurt the BB in port.

While there is still a debate over the fuel farm (with 4 million tons of fuel) take a look at it. It is a hard target to destroy
It is not a giant tank it is many smaller tanks surrounded by walls capable of holding the contents of the tanks and provided with foam distributers to extingush fires

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/8/2005 12:32:50 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 34
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 7:35:55 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
You cant blame Short or Kimmel for failure to plan for a CV raid. It is like blaming the mayor of Armpit Alabama for not having a plan on what to do it a UFO lands on the city hall lawn. A CV raid on a base 3000+ miles in the rear is not something you realistically can plan for. It is the failures on the local level. Failure to disperse aircraft. Failure to fly ASW patrols. Failure to guard against "realistic" threats that they should have and were relieved from.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 35
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 7:44:43 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Had in thelast 2 years UFO's been landing in other locations then you could blame a person in charge of dealing with UFO's for not being ready when one landed.
Ports had been attacked by air and submarine and frogmen in the recent past and yet a person in charge of his countries major Naval Base was caught by surprise by an attack that was a mirror of a prior attack by a nation that had begun all of it's wars in the past 50 years with surprise attacks.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 36
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 7:53:26 PM   
Knaust

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 3/5/2001
From: Rivoli ITALY
Status: offline
Please read also
The West Point Military History Series
The Second World War
Asia and the Pacific
Thomas E.Griess, Series Editor
1984

pag. 52
Because atmospheric conditions had blocked the radio channel to Honolulu...the warning message reached Honolulu at 7:33 AM, but the messenger making the delivery was caught in the rain of Japanese bombs.
We shall never know whether a more expedient dispatch of the final warning message might have blunted the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor. It is clear, however, that no one in Washington seems to have considered using the telephone, which might have given Short and Kimmel about an hour's preparation time - if it is assumed that they would have taken the message seriously and gone to full alert status at once.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 37
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:20:12 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Hi, Had in thelast 2 years UFO's been landing in other locations then you could blame a person in charge of dealing with UFO's for not being ready when one landed.
Ports had been attacked by air and submarine and frogmen in the recent past and yet a person in charge of his countries major Naval Base was caught by surprise by an attack that was a mirror of a prior attack by a nation that had begun all of it's wars in the past 50 years with surprise attacks.


In all of history, no one had ever attacked a base 3000 miles in the rear area as a start of a war. In all military respects, to send your entire strike force in 1 sortie well into the enemys rear area on a "raid", no matter what the possible outcome is a stupid plan. What people dont seem to realize is that while yes, it was "proven" that Peral Harbor could be attacked by a CV force, it was equally "proven" that a CV force could attack the Panama Canal also. No one is screaming that they should have defended there, as it wasnt attacked. But what if it had been? UFOs havent been landing for 2 years, and CV raids deep in the rear werent a common occurance, and to "plan" for one isnt realistic.

(in reply to Knaust)
Post #: 38
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:33:28 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
I am glad Yamatohugger is not doing my planning.

(in reply to waynec)
Post #: 39
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:36:46 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, When I look at a map I don't see PH as the "rear" in a conflict between Japan and the USA. It kind of looks like "the main forward base" to me.
Now a strike by Japan on say Philadelphia would be a strike on the USA's rear and I doubt Philly was ready for such a strike.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/8/2005 1:37:49 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 40
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:37:51 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 41
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:37:58 PM   
RaidOne

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 2/25/2005
From: Toronto, ON
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 42
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:42:09 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
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)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/8/2005 1:42:35 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RaidOne)
Post #: 43
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:46:17 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to RaidOne)
Post #: 44
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:51:41 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 45
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:54:30 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

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

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 3/8/2005 11:00:41 AM >


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 46
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:55:11 PM   
RaidOne

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 2/25/2005
From: Toronto, ON
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 47
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:59:03 PM   
DeepSix


Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 48
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 8:59:24 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
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"

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RaidOne)
Post #: 49
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 9:06:01 PM   
donkuchi19


Posts: 1062
Joined: 3/14/2004
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 50
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 9:09:01 PM   
RaidOne

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 2/25/2005
From: Toronto, ON
Status: offline
:)
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.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 51
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 9:11:34 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/8/2005 2:12:11 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RaidOne)
Post #: 52
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 9:23:49 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

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

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to DeepSix)
Post #: 53
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 9:25:10 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 54
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 9:39:38 PM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 55
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 10:13:43 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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.

< Message edited by anarchyintheuk -- 3/8/2005 8:31:34 PM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 56
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 10:15:13 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
This puts things in good perspective. The full text is at:

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/intelligence/pearl_harbor.htm


quote:

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

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 57
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 10:23:59 PM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 58
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 10:30:17 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 59
RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty - 3/8/2005 11:08:55 PM   
VicKevlar

 

Posts: 881
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline
Moving on up to General forum.....

_____________________________

The infantry doesn't change. We're the only arm of the military where the weapon is the man himself.

C. T. Shortis


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.344