Talk:Husband E. Kimmel

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)

Debating whether Kimmel was a scapegoat or a negligent leader is not really the point of this page. However, if there are reliable sources that make the points articulated by Mak, they should be included in the article (assuming they have not yet been).

Personally, I think Pearl Harbor was enough of a disaster for a lot of people to get at least some of the blame. It may not start or end with Kimmel, but he probably does have some of the responsibility. Ultimately, though, Pres. Roosevelt and his top advisers are the Americans most responsible for the lost lives there. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (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."

What is a "spent" bullet? Could anyone expect a non-fired (non-spent?) bullet to come through the window? Why is this odd wording used in the movie when virtually all of those actors were in the service? 2601:41:4003:B7F0:B6D7:2F56:8CFA:41F8 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Matthew

A spent bullet is one that's lost most of its speed, by distance or passing through some object. 2A02:2788:1008:6D6:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Not a scholar on the subject but I think Japanese attack was hardly unexpected. Many in USA expected Japan to leash out. What was not clear was where. Air power was new. It was not at all that obvious. Secondly, overall, the attack was a failure in my opinion. They failed to sink the carriers. Only a complete annihilation of the fleet would have justified this huge gamble by Japanese. They failed and paid a steep price. Thirdly, there was a warning. Radar did pick the planes 100 miles or more out. That gave all about 30 minutes to react. Now, that was the real failure... at the lowest levels. Murat (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Expecting an attack is one thing. Knowing that it'll be at place X, time Y using forces Z is quite a different thing. Most people expected it to be on The Philippines, in fact they did both.

Re: the radar contact, they were expecting a friendly flight of B-17s at around that time. 2A02:2788:1008:6D6:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

When you write "startegically", it's maybe best to refrain from a calling other people stupid. 2A02:2788:1008:6D6:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2022 (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)

Husband E. Kimmel and the "East-Wind-Rain"-Telegramm dicyphered from Japanese wireless communications

Dear Sir, the description of the fate of Admiral Kimmel and General Short after the devastating, yet strategically useless Japanese tactical victory should at least mention the extensive discussion and revelation provided by John Toland in his book "Infamy".Rarely before or after has a more thorough description of the roughly 9 committees dealing with the case of Adm. Kimmel been provided to the interested public.The mere fact that "East-Wind-Rain" is at no place mentioned, though clearly of considerable importance to the case calls for an immediate improvement.At least a cross-reference to John Toland's work or the discussion of the decyphered Japanese message and the astonishing fact that this information had not been forwarded to Pearl Harbor thus leaving Admiral Kimmel in the dark, could help readers to extend their knowledge by further reading. I'am just a reader and am thus limited to this kind of appeal. Gunter H. Danner-Goldstein, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.61.47 (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Toland was a revisionist. His claims, like the claims of others taking the same position, are entirely without merit. The "East wind, rain" message was never sent. And this nonsensical proposition is exhaustively canvassed here. You may, if you prefer, msg my talk page, since the debate on it really doesn't belong on the article talk. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Stinnett's advanced-warning theory

How is this relevant to this article? There are many "advanced-warning" fringe theories about Pearl Harbor, they have their own page. Why include this one here, especially if "most historians reject Stinnett's thesis." Henry chianski (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

aerial torpedo, a secret weapon whose use could not have been predicted.

ORly? So what crippled the Bismarck early that year and sank the Italian ships at Taranto the year before? Early versions were used in WW1. Amateur hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1008:6D6:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Admiral Kimmel Wounded?

The text has the statement "Kimmel then served in the United States occupation of Veracruz, Mexico, during which he was wounded in April 1914"

Rear Admiral Husband Edward Kimmel was not awarded the Purple Heart, nor are there any notations in his service record to indicate that he was wounded while on active service, which is certainly the implication of this statement.

t apears the writer has confused being injured whle on active service with being wounded, something entirely different. If RADM Kimmel was injured during his service in Mexico, and the injury is important to RADM Kimmel's life, the statement should be revised to make that clear, and to provide some detail. Otherwise, the statement m=should be deleted.

Ranya (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Who names their son "Husband"? Nosehair2200 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)