CLICK TO SUPPORT
PEARL HARBOR ATTACKED

 


Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

1 members are viewing this topic
>Guest

Page 2 of 2<<12

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Thoughts on Kimmel & Short, ADM Kimmel & GEN Short< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 11
herbw2 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Awaiting Authorisation
Posts: 38
Joined: Jan. 2002

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 15 2005,9:24  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Additionally, commanders cannot have the luxury of deciding not to defend the post they were assigned to defend.
By essentially disabling his air force, against the advice of many officers, Short, in effect, elected not to defend Hawaii.
He also made his AAA unavailable for defense.
By the way I do believe that Kimmel and Short were scapegoated for political  reasons.  I am also somewhat  more sympathetic to Kimmel than to Short and support the Congressional resolution regardinng restoration of their rank.
Herb Waserman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
RAK Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2002

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 15 2005,12:42 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hi Herb. :-)  Interesting points you make.
Do you know if General Herron knew at the time of his tenure as Army commander in Hawaii of Japan's efforts at promoting it's war in China to the local Hawaiian Japanese population and of the large sales of Japanese war bonds in the islands?
Surely the US Army and Navy were informed by the State Department of such blatant promotion of Japanese aggression to the locals, even though hundreds of them were eithier loyal to the USA or too apathetic to do more than buy Japanese war bonds in their support of the policies of the home country.

Richard
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 13
herbw2 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Awaiting Authorisation
Posts: 38
Joined: Jan. 2002

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 15 2005,2:45 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

I was referring to General Herron's testimony before the Army Pearl Harbor Board from the Pearl Harbor History Associates website (Ibiblio.org/pha/pha) Herron states that he was aware that it was up to him to use his judgment to put the Department on alert, and not to necessarily rely on an ordered alert from Washington as happened in 1940.
I don't know of how concerned he was about the Japanese threat on the island, but he does mention that protection of the fleet was his primary duty, not just one of his duties.  Protection against sabotage and submarine attack was also important, but had a lesser priority.  Marshall in a letter to Short in February, 1941, reiterated that protection of the fleet was his primary responsibility, not just one of many resposibilities of equal importance.
Interestingly, the Japanese population in Hawaii was never interned as on the US mainland and subversive activity was not a major problem.
Besides criticizing having three levels of alert, he also criticized the order of alerts.  He felt that your all out alert must be number one, as it was with the Navy.  The Army system was confusing. Even though the Navy was informed of this order of alert in a message, it was easy for personnel to be confused.
Herb Wasserman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
12 replies since Sep. 03 2003,9:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 2 of 2<<12
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Thoughts on Kimmel & Short
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code




Spring into Action Banner