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: Kimmel or short..., Greatest blame< 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. 24 2005,4:15  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's not a promotion, but rather allowing Kimmel and Short to retire at their highest rank held, just as all other officers were allowed to do, regardless of whether or not they screwed up.
This was done to protect the Roosevelt administration from its share of resposibility (FYI I do not believe that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the attack).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Dobbins Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2005

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 24 2005,5:18 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

At the time Kimmel and Short retired the law required a retirement at two star rank. Many people who had served prior to the war had retired at that rank after a full term as three or four star officers, for example General McAuthor had retired after serving as a General while he was Army chief of staff, and he reverted to his permanant rank of Major General on the retired list, and was a Major General when he was reactivated shortly before the war it was at his permanant rank of Major General.

The many Officers who served prior to the war without any wartime service were not advanced above their permanant rank on the retirement list. Kimmel and Short did have war time service at higher grades, a total of 10 days of service.

In 1942 after Kimmel and Short retired the law was changed allowing for retirement at a higher rank than two star. It required a year of service at the higher rank, and neither Kimmel nor Short qualified under this law. Many men who had served before the war were not promoted under the new law.

In 1947 the time limit was dropped making Kimmel and Short eligiible for advancement on the retired list if the President nominated them and the Senate approved. They were not nominated by the President, nor were many men who served prior to the war advanced on the list.

Allmost all of Kimmel and Short's service was prewar. Other officers who had only prewar service were not advanced on the retirement lists, so it's a question of should that 10 days of service that resulted in them being relieved of their commands qualify them for an advancement on the retirement lists.

My view is it should not.

--------------
John Dobbins

No government which fails to provide for its own preservation against the assaults of every probable foe is entitled to the support of its people. (Carl Vinson)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
11 replies since Jan. 24 2002,9:31 < 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 Kimmel or 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