Talk:Husband E. Kimmel

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Realities

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, Kimmel and Short could never have held a major command after Pearl Harbor. Things went very wrong and it happened on their watch. Whether they personally deserved to have their careers ruined is another issue entirely; I rather suspect not. Cranston Lamont 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Once Kimmel and Short were relieved of command, their careers were effectively over with. Their professional reputations were certainly ruined, but that comes with being relieved. Was it "deserved"? Probably not, but it comes with the territory. Dukeford (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scapegoats? Did the leadership ignore Naval air power threats?

In multiple war games, and in practical examples, Naval leadership ignored the potent threat of naval air power.

In specific, Kimmel was a battleship admiral who believed as the majority of other naval men believed- that any battle would not be decided by carriers, but by battleships. In war games in 1932, Rear admiral Harry E. Yarnell avoided the sea lanes, used a storm to cover his movements, and then attacked Pearl harbor from the north, first destroying the army air corps on the ground then destroying naval ships in Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were to do this exact manuever 9 years later, even coming from the same direction, but with 3 times as many planes and carriers. It is fair enough to go along with conventional wisdom, but actively ignoring information to the contrary is fatal when technology and tactics improvements can shift force capabilities by an order of magnitude.

The specific weakness of Pearl harbor to Carriers had been pointed out, and both army and naval leadership failed to adjust to a threat which was pointed out to them far in advance of Pearl Harbor.

The Commission was right, but for the wrong reasons. The fundamentals of what went wrong at Pearl Harbor appears to go very much deeper than last minute details concerning bad communications about assessments of the Japanese threats. Billy Mitchell also pointed out the threat, correctly predicting Japanese would attack at exactly the time of day and with the method they did. -Mak 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"During the attack a spent bullet harmlessly bounced off Kimmel. Later he was to say that he wished it had killed him."

While both the incident and the Admiral's reaction seem quite plausable, I think a statement this "dramatic" needs a citation to back it up. Cranston Lamont 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is in the movie, Tora, Tora, Tora. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nits

What Kimmel said when he was hit by a bullet was "It would have been merciful had it killed me." I believe this quote can be found in Prange's work on the Pearl Harbor attack.

Also, Kimmel's son was not killed by the mine. He escaped his sinking submarine, was captured by the Japanese, and, along with other American POWs, was doused in gasoline and burned to death at the POW prison at Puerto Princessa, Philippines. I believe this is documented in Clay Blair's massive book on the American submarine service during the war.

128.165.87.144 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, p.688; it ff an airstrike on Palawan. Robalo should never have been using a mined channel, if not for that unscrupulous nitwit Christie. Trekphiler (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Career officer

What did Kimmel do before he was CINCPAC? Trekphiler (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New analysis of FBI and Justice Dept involvement

Tom Kimmel, grandson of Husband Kimmel, has presented information about potential FBI and Justice Department involvement in a Pearl Harbor coverup. I'm sure Tom will correct me if I have summarized incorrectly. This clearly presents a conflict of interest concern so it needs to be handled carefully. I have suggested that his research can be included in some form so long as it is backed up by reliable third party sources. There is no reason for Tom's research to be excluded so long as it is properly presented per WP:COS and providing that it cannot be squarely classified as a fringe theory. I expect that Tom will join the discussion here. Here is the text that has been proposed for inclusion by Tom Kimmel:

On December 12, 1941, the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover told the President of the United States that an FBI source reported in strictest confidence that: Army and Navy Intelligence in Washington, DC had learned the entire Japanese attack plan days before the attack, and sent it to Admiral Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, who did nothing about it. Mr. Hoover soon supplied this “reliably reported” information to Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen Roberts, Chairman of the Roberts Commission, the tribunal immediately appointed to investigate the Pearl Harbor disaster. Justice Roberts tried but could not prove that Kimmel had this information and failed to act on it. But then Roberts failed to follow Mr. Hoover’s logically suggested written investigative leads in Washington, D.C., as to whether this information was available in Washington and simply not sent to Hawaii. And then later, Roberts inexplicably lied to Congress about where he got the original allegation against Kimmel.

-- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This does smack of yet another Pearl Harbor fringe theory. The problem with these conspiracy theories is that they divert attention from the real substantive problem, that the intelligence system was bureaucratized,--Work permit (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised

It is a no brainer that if Japan were to launch an attack across the pacific ocean against the USA Hawaii would be a target by reason of its location. That the American fleet at Pearl Harbor were sitting ducks at the wide end of a bottle neck leading out into the pacific is startegically and unbelievably stupid. Why would anyone dare to attack on a Sunday morning? Gee whiz, George Washington attacked the British troops on Christmas. As for Kimmel and Short the fine book Pearl Harbor, Final Judgement by Henry C. Clausen gathers the details at the time during the war. More people should read it. If I remember correctly someone just did not golf. Kazuba (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And you fail on the fundamental point at issue. expecting Japan to attack across the Pacific. Hindsight is 20/20. It was widely belived (wrongly, as it turned out) IJN was incapable of carrying out 2 major naval ops at once. The Philippines were expected to be the prime target, for obvious reasons. And since neither Kimmel nor Short had all the information available, while DC did, & DC still didn't expect an attack, blaming Kimmel & Short is wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

"Even if Kimmel did react, it is not clear the results would have been any better for the Americans" should probably read "Even if Kimmel *had* *reacted*, [...] There is a significant difference between those two variations, both grammatically and semantically speaking. I cannot change this, however, since I can only assume, but do not know for sure what exactly ist meant. The former entails action by Kimmel, the latter inaction...85.179.77.53 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)