Kimmel and Short: 100% innocent victms?

TFSmith121

Banned
I'd want Wedemeyer for the ETO, however;

Of course, his replacement (Wedemeyer) was far better suited for Stillwell's role (In terms of large scale warfare) and he managed to keep the Nationalists happy while doing something. In a perfect TL Wedemeyer gets Churchill angrier early for invasion of France 42 (He objected to Italy, something about mountains) and goes to China, Macarthur is the boss while he does the paperwork (which should be quite easy to drawing up war plans) while Stillwell is in Europe with doing Commando raids.

With any luck Communists could be stopped from talking too much while defeating the fascists.

Kimmel and Short though are replaced by someone like King before Pearl, (Shudders) I pity those poor bastards who are now under his command.

I'd want Wedemeyer for the ETO, however; G2 or G3 at SHAEF.

If King was CINCPAC equivalent on 12-7-41, the Japanese will surrender 12-6-41.;)

Best
 
I will add that a formal court martial...has something to be said for it as an honorable opportunity for the commanders in question. Give them the full opportunity to defend themselves formally.

MacArthur's failure in the opening days - which looks to me for all the world a freeze, a collapse in moral courage - is too egregious to allow him to escape punishment. Even for a theater (Philippines) being written off as unsupportable, his failure severely impinged the ability of U.S. Army forces to put up a credible defense against Japanese forces.

It seems quite unfair to line Kimmel and Short up against a wall but allow Mac to get a new command after a much greater failure.


I agree that FDR would never have done this, and his thinking is fairly evident. I also agree that it would have been extraordinarily messy as a political matter. But I think MacArthur's failure, and the lives it cost, and the damage done to the war effort, are egregious enough to justify it.

The alternative would be to leave him to his fate on Corregidor as punishment, but MacArthur knew too much to make risking his capture and interrogation worth that risk.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And as satisfying as it is to imagine MacArthur suffering what Wainwright & the rest did, & more, there seems scant chance. OTOH, AFAIK, no senior officer talked...

As for reassigning, why limit it to MacArthur? IMO, both Kimmel & Short, who did far less badly than MacArthur, could readily have been sent to a "quiet" command somewhere. Liaison with Brazil? Or Canada? (I don't expect either would end up near the fighting...but I wouldn't rule it out, either.)

Yes, the most logical (easiest logistical way) to attack Pearl would be for the Japanese fleet to assemble near the Marshall Islands, resupply, then attack Pearl.
Agreed. This appears to be what Kimmel expected. (As said above, that Yamamoto did the unexpected isn't something he (nor Short) could really have planned for.)
Kimmel was in command of the fleet, stationed at a forward base, and (let's remember) routinely operating even farther forward than its base - the reiinforcement missions to Midway, Wake, and the Philippines were all under his command.
I don't take issue with that. I do, again, take issue with the presumption that being in command makes him clairvoyant. If there is no reason to expect attack and (faulty, agreed, but at the time thought to be) reliable assessment saying IJN is incapable of attacking, why does he prepare for it? That's a bit like preparing for an attack from Canada or Mexico; yeah, in theory, it could happen, & if it does, you look stupid--but who seriously plans for it?:confused::confused:

Hindsight makes us smart. Show me evidence in anybody's hands at the time there was even the remotest expectation of an air attack by Japan on Hawaii. The evidence points exactly the other direction: left on a training schedule, denied intel & equipment.

When they were given explicit instructions to be ready, they were. They got the timing wrong. How it there fault Yamamoto's schedule was different?:confused::confused:
TFSmith121 said:
Not having ready crews on alert, even at cadre strength, at every AA position and fighter field? Also a clear lack of "making the most of what we have"... same for the lack of any sort of actual effort to use the more than ~150 multi-engined aircraft on strength for any sort of active patrols to the north?
All presupposing you have reason to believe an attack is coming.:rolleyes: What did the conditions look like 5 Dec, when they had orders to be ready? Better, I'd guess. (IDK offhand.) And why did they stand down? Because DC had higher priorities for them... So how are they at fault for following the direction of senior command, who, presumably, is better informed of the global situation?:rolleyes: (Notice, nobody in DC expected an attack, either. So why not shoot Marhsall & Stark?:rolleyes: Or Kelly Turner, who might actually deserve it?:rolleyes: Or Stimson?)
 
Top