Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

RUPD3658 -> Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 5:25:54 PM)

After reading At Dawn We Slept and Day of Deceit I believe they were scapegoats.

Anyone else care to put in their 2 cents?

(Author ducks and awaits the ensuing sh*t storm) [sm=00000016.gif]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 5:47:42 PM)

Those judging History always have perfect hindsight. Those making History do not.



mogami -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 5:52:16 PM)

Hi, When your in command, you are held accountable. There were officers who refused shore commands in the Pacific pre war because they knew what was coming (Nimitz was one of these)



Twotribes -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 5:57:22 PM)

Dont really know a lot about Short, is he the one that ordered all the aircraft into the middle of the field to "protect" it?

As for Kimmel, none of the warnings were specific enough to justify sortieing the fleet, exactly what should he have done?



paullus99 -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:03:23 PM)

Placed Pearl Harbor on war alert, had patrols out to look for a possible Japanese aggressive move, & placed a standing CAP over the harbor for starters.



rtrapasso -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:04:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, When your in command, you are held accountable. There were officers who refused shore commands in the Pacific pre war because they knew what was coming (Nimitz was one of these)


True enough - you are held accountable, no matter WHAT the circumstances.

I think there is sufficient evidence to say they (Kimmel and Short) were NOT responsible for what happened, however.

After reading a book by a guy who was one of the head US codebreakers/intel guys, i think Kelly Turner (later, of amphib fame) was probably more responsible at a local (Hawaiian) level than anyone else. On a more fundamental level, FDR bears the blame. He insisted (over Navy objections) on moving the fleet to Hawaii. He also deprived the fleet of fuel, so it could not put to sea on a regular basis (and therefore was sure to be sitting around in Pearl). For some reason, FDR was never held accountable, even though HE was Commander in chief, and made the fundamental decisions that enabled destruction of the fleet.

My father, who was in WW2 and extremely interested in these events, was amused when a truckload of documents subpoened by Congress (from the President's office, iirc)was "accidentally" diverted to an incinerator. Oops![:D] Not much is ever mentioned about this in later years.



Twotribes -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:14:23 PM)

Where was Kimmel to get the Fuel for aggresive patrols? As it was he did increase harbor and local patrols. And how long was he to maintain a war alert? None of the patrols would have included Battleships so they would have still been sitting in Pearl Harbor, and no one seriously thought Japan would strike at Pearl harbor with Carriers. She didnt have the bases for it, thus the "surprise" The considered likely threat was from submarines and in the Philippines.

As for moving the aircraft to the center of the field, well the only defense for that is he really didnt think there was an air threat. He was more worried about sabatoge. It WAS a dumb move but he did have a reason for doing it.

As I recall the Clark Airfield got hit on the 8th after being warned and had a similiar problem.



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:16:41 PM)

quote:

After reading At Dawn We Slept and Day of Deceit I believe they were scapegoats.


i agree. there were many factors involved including the politics and infighting between the intel community in washington and the intel community in hawaii. also the infighting between the navy and the army (and army air force within the army). of course this interservice fighting and even the admirals' revolt in late'40s, early '50s pales when compared to the japanese army/navy rivalries.
i think there was a degree of bigotry in general short's concern about the japanese-american community. but this has to be put in the context of the time. i believe, and my paper linked below spells it out, the hawaii commands suffered from the same problems the entire us military suffered from at that time, lack of resources, over committment of available forces, partisan politics, and trying to plan against japanese intentions rather then japanese capabilities. after all we had "attacked" pearl harbor by air twice.

pearl harbor alternate history article

[image]local://upfiles/6704/Sp450619489.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:19:35 PM)

One good answer would be BOTH.

They were guilty because they were on site and had the command responsibility and did not take all possible actions to ensure the safety of their commands. Like why were the B-17s searching only to the SW where the shipping lanes were. A carrier attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise to the professional military, it had been done by multiple carrier task forces in 3 Naval wargames ( I"m talking on the USN side here ).

But they were scapegoats because some higher ups ... most especially Marshall ... managed to shirk responsibility for the failure to avoid being surprised. On the Navy side, Stark at least got the boot.


But then a question back ... how to we characterize MacArthur who failed to build up the P.I. military during the 6 years it was in his charge even though he convinced Marshall that he had to the extent that Marshall cancelled WPO-3/RB-5 just before the attack on Pearl Harbor ... MacArthur also failed to avoid having his airforce destroyed on the ground and failed to move 1000s of tons of supplys from Manilla to Bataan ... these actions resulting in the deaths of 100s of Americans .. so he isn't a scapegoat ... but he sure is guilty. In his "memoirs" he says that endless lines of trucks moved supply by night and day into Bataan ... hum ... too bad no survivors ever saw any evidence of this. So maybe he is more than guilty !



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:23:09 PM)

quote:

Placed Pearl Harbor on war alert, had patrols out to look for a possible Japanese aggressive move, & placed a standing CAP over the harbor for starters.


kimmel didn't have the resources for intense 360 degree patrols because he was also traing squadrons, the vp units were short aircraft, personnel. it was estimated 5 days and there wouldn't be a pby flyable etween maintenance, operational damage, and lack of crews. interestingly, it was the army who was responsible for air defense of the fleet whil in port and kimmel was not going to sortie the battleships w/o navy (carrier) air cover. the navy and marine fighter squadrons based on oahu were primarily training for the carrier air groups and not necessarily cohesive units.

[image]local://upfiles/6704/Pm348968488.jpg[/image]



RUPD3658 -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:23:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, When your in command, you are held accountable.


The captain of the Indianapolis was eventually cleared of wrong doing in the sinking of his ship. I think these guys were failed by the intel system as a whole and the country needed someone to blame. At the time this was needed for the good of the nation but after 60+ years their names should be cleared due to the information that is now know. I know that this was tried in the mid 90's and the charges were upheld.



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:31:09 PM)

quote:

Like why were the B-17s searching only to the SW where the shipping lanes were. A carrier attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise to the professional military, it had been done by multiple carrier task forces in 3 Naval wargames ( I"m talking on the USN side here ).


well the B-17s weren't searching anywhere. all the b-17s in hawaii werenot based there but were enroute to the phillipines. so while there were B-17s in hawaii they were not a cohesive squadron and really not capable of combat operations. besides army pilots had limited experience and training in long over water flying and ship recognition.

quote:

But they were scapegoats because some higher ups ... most especially Marshall ... managed to shirk responsibility for the failure to avoid being surprised. On the Navy side, Stark at least got the boot.


i am not impreesed with marshall the more i read. macarthur got away with it because 1. we needed a "hero" and he was it and 2. (i think this was from Wilmott) roosevelt didn't want a republican rival in washington and marshall and the generals and admirals didn't want a "hero" in washington so they gave him command in australia.

[image]local://upfiles/6704/Eb868086225.jpg[/image]



mogami -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:36:01 PM)

Hi, Yes they both caught the blame for other persons failures but at the same time.

The radar operators either did not know how to make a report or the people they were reporting to had not been informed on how (what) to report.

A Japanese submarine was detected and attacked hours before the air strike and the Navy was so on alert that it produced absolutly no alarm

The BB were all grouped together. After being on war alerts for months (years) you'd suppose someone whould have thought to disperse the ships (after the RN bombed Italian ships in port, after U-boat had entered Scappa Flow, after Frogmen had entered Alexandria Harbor (all attacks that resulted in sinking BB)

Pearl Harbor was aware Japanese TF was 72 hours from Malaya (actually this TF began landings 1 hour prior to PH strike) (it is over the date line so it was 8 Dec in Malaya but still early morning 7 Dec PH time) So PH had over 3 days advance notice something was up. But all the ships were cold iron, still hooked up to shore power and water etc.

To me it is clear Kimmel was not as awake as even the most un-informed person moght be just using common sense in a world where a major war was on going and another expected at any moment.

You don't need a large map to figure out you don't need a 360 degree search from PH if you have Midway and Johnson fly search in the obvious directions.



pompack -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:40:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, When your in command, you are held accountable. There were officers who refused shore commands in the Pacific pre war because they knew what was coming (Nimitz was one of these)



Kimmel's predecessor (Robertson IIRC) was relieved of command (pardon me, rotated to a new command earlier than expected) because he continued to protest that the fleet could function better on all accounts (supply, training ,etc) from San Diego, could "deter" the Japanese just as well from San Diego, and was obviously more secure in San Diego. However (in the language of a later age), Roosevelt wanted to "send a message" to the Japanese.

Kimmel was carefully selected for the post and was jumped over 15 more senior admirals (including Nimitz).



tsimmonds -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:46:20 PM)

quote:

The captain of the Indianapolis was eventually cleared of wrong doing in the sinking of his ship.


..years after his death by suicide.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:51:29 PM)

Standard "wartime" AC dispersal would have prevented sabotage of more than 2 or 3 aircraft if Short was worried about sabotage. If Short had heeded the "war alerts" and followed "standard" proceedure, the aircraft would not have been as vunerable to air attack OR sabotage. Is this to say they wouldnt have destroyed just as many? Who knows, but the failure to follow proceedure is his. And as you say, the commander is the one left holding the bag, but since it was HIS order to put the planes there, then there is no excuse.

As for Kimmel. The BBs were in harbor and there is little he could do about that. However. He too was given a "war alert", and submarines were a threat (indeed the sinking of one by the Ward 2 hours earlier). Had the Navy been flying "standard" wartime ASW patrols, the incomming Jap aircraft would have been undoubtly spotted before the attack, and the fleet warned. There again, would that have made any difference? Who knows, but as Short, the failure to follow proceedure is his.

Now my personal belief is that FDR knew full well the attack was comming, and the BBs were left there as bait, and the CVs sent out to trap the Japs between Pearl and them not knowing the exact Jap strength, ectera ectera. Personal opinion, as no one will ever really know for sure one way or the other. I DO believe Dugout Doug should have been relieved as well. His aircraft were caught on the ground and destroyed for the most part that first day as well, and that was 12 or so hours AFTER the Pearl Harbor attack. He has no excuse.



mogami -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:56:05 PM)

Hi, If FDR had known the Japanese were coming having the USN waiting in ambush would have been just as good (well better) then having it sunk. The USA would have won the war on the first day.



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:57:07 PM)

quote:

To me it is clear Kimmel was not as awake as even the most un-informed person moght be just using common sense in a world where a major war was on going and another expected at any moment.

You don't need a large map to figure out you don't need a 360 degree search from PH if you have Midway and Johnson fly search in the obvious directions.


the navy didn't have the planes and resources to base pbys on midway, johnston, wake, and at pearl harbor. and, with short as well, if you are trying to train your units with limited resources you can't keep your troops on alert all the time. it's bad for morale and bad for efficiency. that being said , and i did in my paper, there were things that could have been done. lessons learned from the battle of britain could have been used to set up a reasonable air defense coordinating system. as far as radar as late as early '43 admirals and generals didn't understan how to use ship radar so this is understandable. perhaps admiral king's hatred of the english prevented him from taking more advice about fighter control and air defense radar.

i agree some things could have been improved. but like every war, most generals and admirals started out fighting the last war though some admirals (brown and fletcher) did conduct successful carrier attacks on pearl harbor and this should have been planned for.

interesting side note what would have happen if a pby had sighted, and been sighted, by the japanese fleet on the evening of dec 5? nagumo would have turned around and headed home per his orders. if this happen on dec 6 he had the choice to continue or turn back and, given his lack of enthusiasm for the mission, quite likely would have turned back.

i believe any outcome other the what happen at pearl harbor (with the exception of the catstrophic loss of arizona) or the japanese concentrating on the infrastructure and not on the ships) would have been much worse.

[image]local://upfiles/6704/Ki191040021.jpg[/image]



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:59:42 PM)

quote:

Now my personal belief is that FDR knew full well the attack was comming, and the BBs were left there as bait, and the CVs sent out to trap the Japs between Pearl and them not knowing the exact Jap strength, ectera ectera. Personal opinion, as no one will ever really know for sure one way or the other. I DO believe Dugout Doug should have been relieved as well. His aircraft were caught on the ground and destroyed for the most part that first day as well, and that was 12 or so hours AFTER the Pearl Harbor attack. He has no excuse.


while i agree about macarthur i DO NOT believ fdr or churchill knew about the attack and deliberately let it happen without giving a warning IIRC the bombing of coventry and churchill knowing about it has been proven to be a myth.

[image]local://upfiles/6704/Db865106184.jpg[/image]



mogami -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 6:59:46 PM)

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)



esteban -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:02:31 PM)

Guilty. They had the forces in the Hawaiian Islands to conduct a much more aggressive reconaissance of the area around PH, but they didn't order aerial searches of the region.

Short just plain missed the threat when he ordered the Army Air Corps aircraft to be placed together in the middle of the airfields to protect them from sabotage. That's kind of cruel, but throughout history lots of commanders have been relieved or disgraced simply because they prepared for the wrong enemy action.



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:06:37 PM)

quote:

Hi, If FDR had known the Japanese were coming having the USN waiting in ambush would have been just as good (well better) then having it sunk. The USA would have won the war on the first day.


perhaps IF we pulled off a midway type ambush because of good intel.

however we didn't have good intel, no one knew where the japanese carriers were so an ambush was out of the question. the only positive thing might have been nagumo turning back after being spotted per his orders. we had 3 carriers with inferior planes and inferior experience against 6 japanese carriers. the battleships would have never got into the fight and all had inadequate ww1 era aa guns. assuming pre ww2 plans, and tankerace no doubt is the resident expert given his plan orange work, the carriers would not be operating directly with the battleships and thus the 6o fighters would be dispersed flying cap for the battleships and the carriers. the japanese would have focused on the carriers and then the battleships would have been vulnerabl (witness prince of wales and repulse)

[image]local://upfiles/6704/Bz776034528.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:08:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: waynec


well the B-17s weren't searching anywhere. all the b-17s in hawaii werenot based there but were enroute to the phillipines. so while there were B-17s in hawaii they were not a cohesive squadron and really not capable of combat operations. besides army pilots had limited experience and training in long over water flying and ship recognition.




Source for B17s searching south and southwest of Hawaii .. page 137 Schom, "The Eagle and the Rising Run", Norton, 2004.



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:09:07 PM)

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)


i think we would have gotten our butts kicked.



mogami -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:10:58 PM)

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"



waynec -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:11:36 PM)

quote:


Source for B17s searching south and southwest of Hawaii .. page 137 Schom, "The Eagle and the Rising Run", Norton, 2004.


thanks looked it up. no doubt a very limited search due to the numbers available and other missions assigned to them

[image]local://upfiles/6704/Bz777256757.jpg[/image]



Skyros -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:11:47 PM)

The worst thing Kimmel could have done was to sortie the battleships without air cover. At least at Pearl the ships could be salvaged and put back into service.

Their is enough blame to go around to Kimmel, Short and the other politicians and officers. What burns me is MacArthur becoming a "hero" after bungeling the defense of the PI. I read somewhere of some of the last Army/Navy evacuated from PI were singing anti MacArthur songs as they walked down the streets of Darwin. They were quickly told to shut up since he was now a "Hero".



paullus99 -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:18:43 PM)

The battleships could have been sortied to the south & southeast, to get them out of harm's way - if there had been time. Otherwise, at the least the harbor defenses should have been able to inflict much heavier losses on the japanese strikes, possibly slowing down their future combat operations (while replacements were brought up).



Yamato hugger -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:19:17 PM)

quote:

i DO NOT believ fdr or churchill knew about the attack and deliberately let it happen without giving a warning


But they (meaning Washington) DID give warning. I could list my reasonings why I believe as I do, and you could list the reasons why you believe as you do and ultimately neither of us would convince the other. As I said, we will never truely know for sure 1 way or the other. This is a subjuct it is best to say we agree to disagree and move on [;)]



mogami -> RE: Kimmel and Short: Scapegoats or Guilty (3/8/2005 7:21:11 PM)

Hi, I don't believe FDR (or anyone) knew IJN CV were headed for PH.
But if they did know then letting it strike makes no sense.
If you know CV are coming to attack a precise target you don't have to search the entire Pacific to be waiting for it.
You know it is going to launch at less then XXX miles (the range of the aircraft)
And you know it is going to avoid Midway and Johnston (The Japanese did not know we were not flying patrol) And you can bet it is going to avoid normal shipping lanes.

Now you get out your map. Draw a circle around PH out to the range of the enemy bombers. Now you fill in the areas covered by patrols from Midway and Johnson ( as the Japanese would think they existed) fill in the normal shipping routes.
Now you look in the areas that are toward Japan. You have a very small cone to search.
The Japanese have to stay out of spotting range to day before their strike and close during the night.
At dawn they launch a strike towards a deserted PH and the USN CV launch strikes against the IJN CV (PH LBA is already airborne) The USN surface element is standing off enroute towards engaging what is left from the air attacks. (The IJN strike fleet is not a powerfull surface force)
As soon as the IJN launch PH radar shows exactly where to direct Allied strikes.

So I don't think anyone knew in advance because it is too easy to convert that knowledge into a victory that provides too much benifit (There is no plus side for the USA in letting the strike happen) If it is war FDR wanted getting a smashing victory on day one is good and no one will doubt Japan started it simply by their being where they were (they sent a strike first)



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.59375