Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Homer_J_Simpson
I have read more than a few rationales by current historians that pronounce that Kimmel and Short were "just scapegoats" and railroaded into oblivion after the debacle at Pearl Harbor.

I am of a different view: command means responsibility and they were the senior commanders. They were responsible for training the area defense forces and for operational preparations for the imminent war with Japan.

No excuses by latter day apologists can excuse the extreme lack of readiness by the naval and army forces on Hawaii (or for that matter, the Philippines). Kimmel and Short should have served prison time.

7 posted on 01/25/2012 4:56:27 AM PST by Chainmail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Chainmail
I am of a different view: command means responsibility and they were the senior commanders.

The Commander-in-Chief is, by definition, senior to both.

While not abrogating the responsibility of Kimmel and Short as the top local area commanders, I find it revealing that Obama-sized buses were available in Roosevelt's time too.

11 posted on 01/25/2012 5:21:06 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Why, yes. I AM in a bad mood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail
Chainmail: "No excuses by latter day apologists can excuse the extreme lack of readiness by the naval and army forces on Hawaii (or for that matter, the Philippines).
Kimmel and Short should have served prison time."

Headline: "RAID SIGNS IGNORED"
..."ORDERS NOT CARRIED OUT"

By James B. Reston: "The disastrous Japanese attack on the United States' main Pacific naval base at Pearl Harbor Dec. 7 was due mainly to the failure of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieut. Gen. Walter C. Short to take adequate joint action for the defense of the Hawaiian Islands despite repeated warnings from the War and Navy Departments, Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts, chairman of President Roosevelt's special investigating commission, reported today..."

This report -- the Roberts Report -- was the first of many, not all of which arrived at the same conclusions.
Some reports put more blame on higher-ups in Washington for failure to adequately warn Hawaiia's commanders.

And the truth is, those warnings from Washington were vague and misleading -- none, zero, zip nada, said to expect air attack on Hawaii.

So the historical issue is whether Washington knew enough to have more adequately warned Hawaii?
The answer is, the case has not been proved, but there is evidence suggesting Washington did know more than they told Hawaii about.

Here's the bottom line: any suggestion that Hawaii received multiple warnings of a coming air attack is false in the extreme.

12 posted on 01/25/2012 5:38:55 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson