Posted on 01/25/2012 4:36:43 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
As I mentioned earlier, the Brits demonstrated with crystal clarity at Taranto that aerial torpedoes could be employed against moored ships bottled up in harbors. However one enjoys the good life in Hawaii, that had to be a wake-up call for anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge or situational awareness. Kimmel and Short were pretty typical inter-war officers: big on drill and polish, parties on the lanai, and golf (which is what Short was doing as the Japanese arrived). They were less able when it came to taking the war warnings seriously.
You are correct that extensive patrolling is rough on pilots and aircraft availability. So, which was more expensive? Nice, long patrols out to the main radials to the Northeast and Northwest and maybe getting an hour or two warning or keeping the patrol aircraft parked and shiny? All those PBYs were in excellent condition when they were destroyed that morning at Kaneohe Bay.
The other preparations are too numerous to cover but since both General Short and Admiral Kimmel had more than a few years in the service, they most likely knew what they could have been doing - but they didn't do it.
Commanding a unit means that you are responsible, period. The faceless and useless bureaucrats higher up don't care what happens to you and your troops. Only you do. They will run and hide when the crap hits the oscillating air movement device and blame everyone else. When the day arrives and you aren't prepared, you're the one. People live or die depending how well you readied them and gave them the tools they needed.
I have no patience for those folks out there (including current officers) who don't understand the seriousness and the finality of command. It has been this was since before time but nowadays they think it's "just a career" that anyone can do.
Anybody know what happened to that witless and gutless Captain King who led those support troops blundering into An Nasariyah? Probably nothing, yet he should have been clobbered. Nailing a leader for cowardice and stupidity in the face of the enemy teaches every other leader to pay attention.
Punishing Kimmel and Short was the right thing to do - and given the severity of the consequences of their negligence, they are lucky they got off as lightly as they did. They should have had to face the parents of each of those young men who died, one by one.
Which was my point in my original post. Thank you.
I am not sure I would say Britain handled it better.
Didn’t Churchill allow Coventry to be destroyed?
First of all, on the non-issue of whether Kimmel & Short were responsible: of course they were, as commanders they were totally responsible, just as MacArthur was in the Philippines.
And yet MacArthur, who suffered similar results in December, 1941, and in early 1942 the greatest single defeat in the history of the US Army, MacArthur emerged as a national hero, while Kimmel & Short became scapegoats.
Second of all, remember that Kimmel & Short were under orders to remain on training schedules, not war-alert schedules, and indeed, this is precisely the issue which had less than a year earlier gotten Kimmel's predecessor Admiral James Richardson, fired by President Roosevelt.
So Kimmel was hired with the firm understanding that he would remain on a leisurely training schedule until ordered otherwise.
Third, the "war warnings" received by Kimmel & Short did not order higher alert for air-attack, but rather suggested the lowest alert level, against sabotage.
Finally, every commander understood what could happen in terms of Japanese air attack, but none in Hawaii believed there was actual data suggesting such an attack was even likely, much less imminent.
In this they were mistaken -- there was such data, and it was probably known by Naval Intelligence people like Commanders Joe Rochefort and Eddy Layton.
But there is no evidence that either ever suggested a Japanese air attack was likely -- to Kimmel or to any other commander in Hawaii.
Remember that those "war warnings" sent to Kimmel & Short were actually written by the politicians -- FDR, Stimson & Knox, and gave no hint whatever of a possible air attack on Hawaii.
But they did suggest attacks on the Philippines -- the source of such information being every bit as secret as data on Pearl Harbor -- and so the obvious inference is that Washington also did not expect the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor.
The debate here then, is whether "Washington knew" or suspected enough to have more clearly warned the commanders in Hawaii?
Most historians say "no", with just a few "conspiracy nuts" pointing to data suggesting otherwise.
Probably not. There was a discussion about this on the thread for Novermber 16, 1940. Among numerous replies on the thread about the bombing henkster's post #16 stands out and I recommend it.
According to the Wikipedia article on Kimmel, he said
"I feel that a surprise attack (submarine, air, or combined) on Pearl Harbor is a possibility, and we are taking immediate practical steps to minimize the damage inflicted and to ensure that the attacking force will pay."
That amazingly cogent analysis was supposedly made in February 1941. So, are you saying that he was ordered to forget what he had said? He certainly didn't follow through or demonstrate any initiative. There were a whole bunch of things he could have done to defend Pearl Harbor - which Admiral Richardson had himself pointed out would be a primary target of the Japanese.
He's lucky that he didn't have me on his Court Martial board.
What a memory you have.
So answer this: why should Kimmel and Short not have been treated the same way MacArthur in the Philippines was?
Chainmail: "So, are you saying that he was ordered to forget what he had said?
He certainly didn't follow through or demonstrate any initiative.
There were a whole bunch of things he could have done to defend Pearl Harbor "
Not at all, and first of all, there were many things Kimmel could have done and did do, and others that he requested permission for but was denied, or delayed.
But more to the point, none of those things really mattered -- what mattered was that on December 7, US forces in Hawaii were not on alert or ready for air attack.
Had they been on alert, the outcome might not have changed much -- could even have been worse -- but Kimmel & Short might have kept their jobs a bit longer.
So the historical question is, why did they not order a higher alert?
The answer is: because they had no information from Washington, or from their own intelligence services, suggesting a higher alert was necessary, or even prudent.
Consider this: about two weeks before the actual attack, Kimmel marshaled his fleet for very realistic exercises of precisely the attack the Japanese actually conducted on December 7.
So any suggesting that Kimmel didn't comprehend what he was facing is just ludicrous.
But in the middle of those exercises, Kimmel received orders from Washington to send both of his aircraft carriers off on wild goose chases, delivering warplanes to Midway and Guam.
So what stronger message could Washington send Kimmel about where they expected the Japanese attack to strike?
How much experience do you have in these armed forces? Kimmel and Short may not have had the most instantaneous notifications but they could read newspapers. Those two yardbirds didn't have their hands tied behind their backs - they certainly had the authority to institute higher readiness procedures and to man the ships and shipyards and airfields on "port and starboard" watches. Instead, those twits kept everything at the Dress Whites and intermural games level and slept in on Sunday. Sorry, my friend, that doesn't wash among even the most junior of commanders.
MacArthur was treated differently because he was seen as too valuable a symbol to fry - that, and even though he very stupidly lost all of his aircraft to the first Japanese attacks, he did rally the US and Philippine forces into a resolute and valorous defense. He actually had talent, as the next several years would demonstrate.
By the way, that "wild goose chase" to get those fighters to Midway gave the Marines the tools to give the Japanese their first bloody nose by defeated their first landing attempts. Now, you would think that Kimmel and Short might have read something more urgent into the situation if the carriers were suddenly broken away from a nice expensive training exercise to reinforce our bases, wouldn't they?
They were incompetents.
Of course, I said no such thing.
You may remember the ancient Chinese military genius Sun Tzu?
One of his edicts was: before you punish a subordinate for failure, you must first make certain he understood your instructions.
Kimmel and Short clearly did understand the instructions they were given by Washington.
It was the instructions, those "war warnings", which were in error.
Chainmail: "Those two yardbirds..."
Chainmail: "...those twits kept everything..."
Chainmail: "They were incompetents."
Chainmail: "MacArthur was treated differently...He actually had talent..."
So, I take it you knew them personally, and feel eminently qualified to pass such personal judgments?
No, the fact is you didn't know them and are unqualified to make judgments, but you do it because that's just a lot easier than coming to grips with the real historical question, namely: why weren't Kimmel and Short more adequately warned, when they easily could have been?
Have you studied the alleged "war warnings"?
Do you know that in addition to saying nothing about a Japanese attack on Hawaii, the "warnings" specifically instructed commanders not to do anything which might alarm the civilian population?
Do you know the "warnings" instructed commanders to let the Japanese commit the first overt act of war?
So, in what way, precisely, did Kimmel and Short not do what they were commanded to do?
Clearly, Washington did not expect the coming attack, and was more concerned about sabotage and preventing civilian panic than protecting its military assets.
Now before you go flying off the handle and accusing me of who-knows-what nonsense, listen up, here's what I've said:
You know, my Dad was a World War II veteran, served in the Pacific, and he used say: there are only two types of military operations -- those which are successful and those which suffered from a failure of Intelligence.
Kimmel and Short suffered from failures in Intelligence, and very little of that was their own fault.
Au contraire, my friend - I have actually commanded units up to a battalion. Anything that went wrong was my fault, not anyone else's. As I have mentioned before, military command is unique in a number of ways, not the least of which is the loss of life that results from poor command decisions.
This is getting tiresome for both of us - you seem doggedly sure that poor old Kimmel and Short should be dug up and exonerated and I most certainly don't. They had choices: nobody, not even us humble military folks, has to obey an illegal or obviously criminal order. In fact, we have an obligation to our country and to the people we lead to do the best we can to fulfill the mission, obey the Constitution and do our level best to bring everyone home alive. If Admiral Kimmel really did observe the danger coming per the February '41 quote, then he was demonstrably negligent for the nearly complete defenselessness of that Sunday morning. His internal comm system was so screwed up that he didn't receive the most important warning issued by Washington overnight and his system bolluxed up the report from the Shaw detailing its attack against the Japanese sub entering the harbor defensive zone. As commanders, they were responsible for planning, training, operations, communications, supply, and intelligence. The fate of their commands rested on how well they did their job - when the Japanese arrived it was too late.
I like the quote from your Dad (my Dad and both Uncles served in WWII too, and a Cousin died at Pearl Harbor) but I would courteously disagree with him: there are more outcomes than just two - success or intelligence failure. History is filled with battles that were won because of courage, preparation and training even with intelligence failure (Betio and the Battle of Samar come to mind) and others lost or just made more costly even with excellent intelligence but poor preparation and leadership (the hapless MG Lucas at Anzio for instance).
Ramping up preparations for all contingencies was those commanders' responsibility. They failed, hence incompetence. All the machinations made to resurrect those two and whitewash their records is a waste of time and energy and acts to diminsh the records of men who led capably in combat.
There is no room for excuses in the profession of arms.
There is no room for excuses in the profession of arms.
I agree almost 100%. There is a caveat, which I have seen first hand (Article 32 hearing), in Turkey, Germany, and Italy. The diplomats. Turns everything upside down.
And you would think, that the U.S. State department is on the side of the U.S. military....
5.56mm
Yes, you would think so but I have had the same experience: the people in our State Department despise military folks and are the polar opposite in the way they view reality. In my dealings with their lower-level and mid-level people they were almost always liberals and/or gay. It is no wonder that the rest of the world has trouble dealing with us.
Hard to believe nobody listened to the reports by the Ward, much less the sounds of 5 inch gunfire and depth charges that Sunday morning! Reinforces my judgement of Kimmel's lack of preparation - at very least his Operation Center should have been alert and manned for reports from his patrol vessels!
Furthermore, he later became life-long friends with Adm Husband Kimmel and his family.
Bottom line, DC knew very well Japan's intentions. The lingering question remains, were they incompetent or intentional?
The most "tiresome" part is your utter refusal to read what I actually write, and your dishonest attempts to put words in my mouth.
And this from a self-proclaimed high ranking officer?
Do they not teach you people to be decent any more?
Did they not teach you to read?
Come on soldier, get your head out of your rear, and pay attention to the situation here.
;-)
Let me straighten you out FRiend.
First of all, you know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about Kimmel and Short, whether they were competent, incompetent, brilliant, stupid, yardbirds or twits: you don't know.
You know one thing and one thing only: they did not order higher stages of alert, when perfect 20-20 hindsight shows us that's what they should have done.
You also should know that General MacArthur in the Philippines did order higher alerts, but still suffered nearly as much destruction as Short did in Hawaii.
He then went on to suffer the greatest single military defeat in US history.
And yet MacArthur was made a national hero, while Kimmel & Short were immediately and summarily fired.
Do you know, it is strongly argued that had Kimmel & Short been on higher alert and ready for battle, the death and destruction suffered could have been far worse?
So what, exactly were they guilty of?
Answer: they were certainly guilty of following the instructions they received from Washington and of believing reports of their own Military Intelligence people.
For that they suffered dismissal, and rightly so, but that doesn't answer the historical questions:
Now soldier, when you think you've got your mind around the real problem, then stand at ease.
If there are no further questions, then you're dismissed.
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.