Talk:Ernest King

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ernest King article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Ernest King is one of those historical figures who is revered from a safe distance and disliked up close. He probably earned both.

Cranston Lamont 23:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ranks

Commodore was not a rank when King came along, so I deleted the "he was promoted directly to Rear Admiral" passage. Civilians tend to think Commodore is a rank, but it has, in fact, only rarely been an official rank in our Navy.

  • Commodore has typically been a temporary wartime rank, used for captains to temporarily assume "flag duties" commanding groups of vessels.Paulmeisel 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Naval officers below the rank of Rear Admiral who are in command of more than one ship (like a Captain commanding a destroyer squadron) are sometimes informally referred to as "Commodore". Cranston Lamont 00:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is inaccurate to say that King was second in seniority only to Admiral Leahy in the Navy at the outbreak of WW II. Richard E. Byrd had been promoted to Rear Admiral after his Anartic polar flight in 1931 at the age of 43 (five years younger than King and 16 years Leahy's junior). This seniority actually represented something of a problem for the navy given Byrd's celebrity and political connections. He was, however, a very modest person, and never tried to pull rank to assert his perrogatives of command. user: Michael Maher 27 August 2007

By virtue of his position (CNO), Harold Stark was the "ranking" active-duty admiral on 07 Dec 1941. Thomas Hart was the "senior" four-star admiral at the time, with King second. Leahy retired in 1939. He returned to active duty in July, 1942. Richard Byrd wasn't on active duty, either, having retired in the early 1930's. When he came back on active duty during the war, he was still a rear admiral. Dukeford (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

Much of the commentary regarding his wartime decisions is inconsistent with published biographies (most notably Buell's biography which is regarded as definitive). When I can dig a copy out I will revisit. Paulmeisel 16:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "...most even tempered man in the Navy" quote

According to Ronald Lewin's "The American Magic", ISBN 0 14 00.6471 0, page 121, paragraph 2, the quote is, "He is the most even-tempered man in the Navy. He is always in a rage." It is attributed to King's daughter! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antinice (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC). --Antinice 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Antinice

[edit] "Analysis"

This entire section needs to be deleted and reworked. Based on information in King's autobiography, Buell's biography of King, and Clay Blair's "Hitler's U-Boat War" almost this entire section is either wrong, or a collection of hearsay and catty diary entries of his antagonists.ElectricJoe 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A thought

The Anglophobia is mentioned, but no reason at all is provided as to why he may have had that sort of bias. This skirts the line between common knowledge and hearsay. We need a 'why', and a cite for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.22.101 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Agree. Although there is some evidence for antipathy towards Britain, as a Brit I'd like to know the causes. I've also asked elsewhere (Maritime warfare talk page). No response, so far. Folks at 137 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Been dragging the chain on this page. I will update it again soon, providing you with the requested citation. King's Anglophobia dated back at least to his experience in the UK with the Royal Navy during the Great War but may well have been there before, given the rivalry between the US and UK in that early part of the 20th century.
In the Second World War, while most of the big arguments were between Marshall and Brooke, King was the one who always suspected that the British were lax in their commitment to the alliance with the United States. In particular, he suspected that the British did not intend to launch a cross-channel attack in 1943; sought excuses not to carry out amphibious operations in southern Burma in 1943; intended to deploy a fleet to the Pacific without adequate logistical support and then charge this to the United States; and did not intend to continue a maximum war effort against Japan after the defeat of Germany.
Unfortunately, while I can cite instances of King's tendency to be suspicious of British motives and methods, just as I can cite instances where he was "rude and abrasive", but his motivation remains more elusive. It is impossible to state with certainty why people do what they do and I would argue that there is no place for it in this work. Instead, we normally just list possible reasons, aware that decisions are made when people take these rationalisations and combine them with their prejudices.
Hawkeye7 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Points:
  1. US/UK rivalry was, I believe, reflected in naval planning and wargames with Britain as an adversary.
  2. In 1943, the logistics and surety of supply for a cross-channel invasion did not exist. Power of reason won this point. Burma, not sure, but it wasn't in a good state, militarily. Also amphibious craft were not available.
  3. On the Pacific, the other view remains he was anti-Brit with rationalisation coming along later. But I doubt he was alone in this.
Good luck hauling the chain. Folks at 137 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I had forgotten about Plan Red. It continued to be studied right up to the war; not because there was any threat from Britain, but simply because Britain was the only country capable of invading the US.
  2. The point here is that King approached all these issues from a skeptical standpoint, and required convincing.
  3. You're absolutely correct here but since we cannot be sure, the final article will say something like "King opposed this on the grounds that..." leaving the known fact open to both interpretations.
Hawkeye7 11:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

King's ambivalence towards the British was formed prior to WWI, when he was exposed to elements of the Royal Navy, and didn't appreciate their condescending attitude. This was amplified during WWI, when he served as a staff officer on the US Atlantic Fleet. King's feelings were not isolated - there was plenty of "Anglophobia" in the US Navy between the wars. I also concur with Hawkeye's comments. Dukeford (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have come into the possesion of some rarely-seen, first-hand documents from Walter Muir Whitehill (King's biographer) and Admiral Francis "Frog" Low, who worked for King 1939-1945, that address King's "Anglophobia". When I figure out how to present it, I'll post it.Dukeford (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

Okay, I have made some corrections in line with the suggestions above. Also corrected a number of errors of fact:

  • King was not the most senior admiral in the US Navy; that distinction belongs to William D. Leahy
  • King did not favour the war in the Pacific over that in the Atlantic. He believed strongly in the Germany First strategy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I have corrected the ranks while at Annapolis. Currently rthe articles calls him a Naval Cadet and Later a Passed Midshipman. When an person enters the Academy become a Midshipman Fourth Class and reaches Midshipman First Class. So technically through the four years they all just Midshipment, but never naval cadets. Wikihonduras 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What you say is correct but your change is wrong. The old rank of naval cadet was changed to midshipman while King was at Annapolis. Hawkeye7 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"King was a strong believer in the Germany first strategy, and gave priority to the war in the Atlantic.". I've added a "citation needed" tag to this. There are several of King's decisions that contradict this assertion (and are referred to in the article), so a specific citation should be given. Folks at 137 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Will reconcile this with any decisions that apparently contradict this fact, as I find them.
Hawkeye7 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

King made decisions that may appear to contradict his stated "Germany First" policy, but he certainly didn't see it that way. While he agreed that Germany be defeated first, that should not mean totally ignoring the Japanese (which is what the British, and to a lesser extent, the US Army, would have preferred). King stated that "the Russians would do 9/10 of the job against Germany" and he was exactly correct; he also realized early on that we could fight a two-ocean war. Refer to Buell's book or Pogue's books on Marshall.Dukeford (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref formatting

I replaced the "Ibid"s in the <ref> tags with a modified Harvard citation approach. Reasoning - if other editors insert citations into the text, "Ibid" may no longer be related to the appropriate reference source. — ERcheck (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Rank

The article for William Halsey has his date of rank for Lieutenant J.G. the same as Lieutenant but he underwent the same type of promotion as King. So, shouldn't one the articles be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.56.241 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

Recent changes to this section seem to be POV or require citations: in some cases, they take no account of earlier, referenced, additions. One instance is the tagging of the British Pacific Fleet as "politically-motivated": given the British assurances (given in 1942) of full involvement in the war against Japan once Germany was defeated, the British interests in the region and Australian discomfort at being submerged or sidelined by US pre-dominance, the British (more accurately British Empire, as the BPF was mullti-national) desire to be involved is understandable. One could also tag King's resistance as political. Another issue is the use of US Atlantic forces for troop convoy escort: there was only one at the time of "Drumbeat", it was delayable, and unused AS forces were moored while ships were being sunk (referenced to a US author). I suggest that we add info and citations to the analysis and then rework it. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The page still needs substantial updating. I shall be reworking it, adding info and much-needed citations. I got sidetracked half way.
King's resistance to the BPF was not political but based on a naval assessment that the British Navy lacked the logistical infrastructure to operate in the Central Pacific. King foresaw that the British Pacific Fleet would require US Navy support, necessitating a withdrawal of some of the United States Fleet, and therefore not resulting in any net gain. The anglophobia of King and senior officers of the US Navy in general was certainly also a factor but it also has to be noted that he was right: the BPF did require US Navy support, although it attempted to comply with the CCS directive that it to be self-supporting. This is an issue that confronts coalition commanders to this day.
The article sounded very odd to me as well when it claimed that the BPF a political measure was forced on Churchill by the British Chiefs of Staff.
The term "British" had a double meaning back then - it was understood in certain contexts to include Australian, Canadian and New Zealand. I may add words to this effect to the BPF article.
As for "Drumbeat", I think we agree on this one too. Troop shipping were not the issue. The problem was the shortage of escorts. In turn, this can be blamed on the US Navy (but not King) because of a pre-Pearl Harbour policy of building up a large, balanced fleet containing aircraft carriers, battleships etc rather than concentrating on escorts. This - and the ineffective effort - harkens back to the fact that the US Navy was as mentally unprepared for the U-Boats as it was materially.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Good, good. I agree that King's practical reservations about BPF endurance were valid, at the outset. However, there was a real effort to build forward bases (eg MONABs) and a fleet train for the BPF. These points should be in this article and the detail in the BPF one. I think that King retained his opposition in principle to BPF involvement, as did his colleagues, which is why FDR overruled them (a political decision). The extent of actual US logistical support to the BPF should also be recorded.
There is at least one source, which I can obtain, that the British chiefs of staff threatened resignation if Churchill did not ok involvement in the Pacific. This was an issue at the overlap of the political and military spheres.
Yes, escorts were in short supply, but those that were available were not deployed properly and there was little sense of fighting spirit, which is strange given the preceding months' activities. Also King and his commanders failed to use what was available, finding out eventually that even inadequate sporting boats had a deterrent effect. Have look at Gannon's book, which needs to be contrasted with other, more generous sources.
Folks at 137 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The "politcal motivation" behind the use of the British Fleet in the Pacific is well-documented in both Brooke's and Cunningham's diaries. They state that the British General Staff forced the issue on Churchill. This was King's underlying objection, and he specifically refers to it in "Fleet Admiral King". The fleet train problem was a red herring. King also had objections to incorporating units of mixed nationality into the U.S. Fleet, due to differing tactical doctrine. This is mentioned in Admiral Low's short tretise on his relationship with King. Finally, King certainly felt that the British had no buisness interjecting themselves into an essentially American-run theater. The U.S. Navy had already pushed the Japanese all the way back to their home islands, and the British Fleet was not needed to bring about Japan's defeat.Dukeford (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have serious objections to using Gannon's book as the sole reference arbitrator of King's performance in the U-boat war. Perhaps some American historians are too sympathetic to King's image, but Gannon's book is overly biased in the other direction. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Dukeford (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The logistical effort required to support the British Pacific Fleet (BPF) was immense. I have updated the order of battle on the BPF page to include the fleet train, so readers can judge for themselves. I should also add some more words about it. Also, the US Navy had not "already pushed the Japanese all the way back to their home islands" when the decision was taken at Quebec in September 1944.

The minutes of the meeting imply a heated discussion:

"The COMBINED CHIEFS OF STAFF then considered paragraph 2 of CCS 452/27 referring to the use of a British Empire task force in the South West Pacific.
"SIR CHARLES PORTAL said that the Prime Minister had offered the British Fleet for use in the main operations against Japan. By implication this paragraph accepted a naval force for the South West Pacific, and was therefore contrary to the intention he had expressed.
"ADMIRAL KING said that it was of course essential to have sufficient forces for the war against Japan. He was not, however, prepared to accept a British Fleet which he could not employ or support. In principle he wished to accept the British Fleet in the Pacific but it would be unacceptable for the British main fleet to be employed for political reasons in the Pacific and thus necessitate the withdrawal of some of the United States Fleet.
"SIR CHARLES PORTAL reminded Admiral King that the Prime Minister had suggested that certain of the newer British capital ships be substituted for certain of the older US ships.
"SIR ANDREW CUNNINGHAM said that as he understood it the Prime Minister and President were in agreement that it was essential for British forces to take a leading part in the main operations against Japan.
"ADMIRAL KING said that it was not his recollection that the President had agreed to this. He would not accept that a view expressed by the Prime Minister should be regarded as a directive to the Combined Chiefs of Staff.
"SIR CHARLES PORTAL said that the Prime Minister felt it essential that it should be placed on the record that he wished the British Fleet to play a major role in operations against Japan.
"SIR ALAN BROOKE said that, as he remembered it, the offer was no sooner made than accepted by the president.
"ADMIRAL KING asked for specific British proposals."

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hawk, you are correct. The preceding was included in Buell's book. Too bad the conference meeting minutes were not taken verbatum. The actual language used would be interesting! Dukeford (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion on Jan 17 re Gannon "bias"

I don't like blanket reverts but these appeared v POV. If, however, Gannon's work is demonstrably incorrect or invalid, then this needs discussion. In his defence, I know of no authority that has disputed his work. He did interview participants and view original documents in Europe and US. Folks at 137 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few days to read Gannon. It does not sound incorrect or at odds with Morison's scathing semi-official account, which is most likely what I will go with. The U-Boat offensive was foreseeable but the US Navy was unprepared, and it took too long to adapt. This seems like another one of those items where King is not so much personally at fault as he is standing in for the navy whose policies and values he embodied.
(inserted comment) Gannon quite specifically lays blame at King's feet, not for the resources available, but for how they were deployed. Given King's pro-active and aggressive command style, it's hard not to assume he could have over-ruled his subordinates, at will. Anyway, read Gannon and see what you think. For me, the power is that he's prepared to ignore the smoke-screens and judge on evidence. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is really annoying me: "He (along with Marshall[citation needed]) wanted no part of the perceived British agenda in reclaiming or maintaining any part of her pre-war colonial holdings, whether in the Pacific or the eastern Mediterranean[citation needed], preferring to broaden American hegemony in the region. Roosevelt, however, overruled him". The policy was actually Roosevelt's; but the text makes it look like King and Marshall were differing from him and that Roosevelt's was the one opposed to his own policies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Poor phrasing. FDR overruled King in respect of BPF deployment (according to Churchill). The more I read, the more it seems that there were deliberate US (FDR) efforts to displace UK economic and influence around the world, so I wouldn't blame (credit?) King for that. But from this side, there seemed to be a predisposition amongst some US military and political leaders against European interests. (Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean THEY're NOT out to get me !!!) Browsed a book in Foyle's yesterday that concentrated on differences between the WWII allies. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On several occasions, Marshall voiced his objections to supporting British aims (read "empire preservation") in the Eastern Med. This is well-documented in Pogue's interviews. King's viewpoint mirrored Marshall's, and he stated as much in "Fleet Admiral King". I wrote the original text for this, but someone else inserted the bit about "American hegemony". That throws off the whole paragraph.Dukeford (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Gannon's book "contradicting" Professor Love's statement should be removed. Actually, the reverse is technically correct, but the main issue here is that Gannon's viewpoint starts the section, and Love's "rebuttal" finishes it. There's no need to reiterate Gannon "contradicting" anything. The reader can make that decision. Dukeford (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt's opposition to British Colonialism is fairly well established. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Marshall actually use the expression "empire preservation" or is that an interpretation? I know that there was a general American resistance to allied Eastern Med activity, but I thought that was because they saw France as the direct route to Germany (and US agreement to Torch was based on UK agreement to Dragoon). I'm not sure that Churchill saw the eastern Med as an Empire issue once the Italians had quit. He had serious reservations about Stalin's intentions in eastern Europe, that FDR didn't share or had decided to relegate, hence later British intervention in Greece. British involvement in the Pacific was also an agreed strategy following German defeat or neutralisation.
I inserted the 'hegemony' bit (itself a POV word) largely as a counter-point to the 'empire' bits which sounded too POV on their own (the realpolitik was that the allies were jockeying for position as the war came to an end). This section is getting scrappy as bits are added to it - the "contradiction" note is a part of this. The structure needs to be addressed once all the points are gathered (see Hawkeye7's comments above). I suspect the Lowe v Gannon differences are not resolvable here but, as said, the various sourced opinions should be offered to the reader. Gannon's points are countered by the quotation, but not the substance of his argument. Anglophobia remains unproven (IMO more likely to be professional insularity, pride and self-sufficiency), but King did disregard British experience, information and offers of help (and his own naval intelligence) in the first weeks of 1942. And the consequences were dire. It's a counter-point to his achievements elsewhere. Folks at 137 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot stress this strongly enough: Taking Gannon's work as the definitve word on the U.S. Navy's actions against the U-boats is like using (for example) Toland's "Infamy" as the last word on who was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Both books are entertaining and thought-provoking, but both are flawed and misleading - in many ways, seriously so. Ironically, Gannon also wrote a book on Pearl Harbor that attempts to absolve Admiral Kimmel, which is preposterous. Controversy sells, which seems to be Gannon's m.o..Dukeford (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take anyone's, including Gannon's, work "as the definitve word" - that's an "Aunt Sally"! However, do his opinions have neither basis nor value? Has he misrepresented his references or has he misinterpreted them? Given that he's an established academic, it would be professional suicide to be caught out. As an interested amateur I have to rely on others' research and several of Gammon's arguments seem to be based on actuality. For example, Gannon states that 13 destroyers were in New York harbour awaiting convoy duty (AT-10) on the days that U-123 operated off Long Island: none sortied to harry the the sub. He names the warships. He argues (reasonably, surely?) that the despatch of a troop convoy in the circumstances was "reckless". Is this untrue, is his argument baseless? The need to escort convoys is often trotted out as a reason (there are several) for the poor USN response in the early days of Drumbeat - but the warships were available to be diverted from a "reckless" sailing. Please offer me a few book titles to balance my education.
Re BPF: are King's "real" objections (mentioned above) as stated by him? If so I'd like to include them in the BPF article, with references. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Gannon is very selective in what he uses to further his anti-King agenda. The AT-10 convoy is a case in point. Does he say why the destroyers in question weren't sortied, other than "awaiting convoy duty"? One must keep in mind that King was no longer the CINCLANT at the time (it was Ingersoll), and that the entire U.S. Navy was in considerable upheaval in the weeks after Pearl. Gannon chooses to ignore these facts (his view on the troop convoy as "reckless" sounds like POV). In addition, King generally let his commanders command, without interference. He would have left it up to Ingersoll (a very senior and well-regarded flag officer) to direct ship activities. Furthermore, Gannon ignores the fact that everyone in the Navy from King on down knew (and stated) right after Pearl that we would have a tough time with the U-boats until sufficient quantities of the proper escort craft were available. Pulling escorts from Fleet operations or from troop or Lend-Lease convoy duty was not considered a viable option - by anyone, including Roosevelt and Churchill. Another canard is the issue of Liberator aircraft for anti-sub patrols. How could King have deliberately disregarded (!) a direct order from the President, when the aircraft weren't his to deploy until the early part of 1943! "Professional suicide" isn't part of the equation, IMHO. That doesn't stop people from writing books. Clay Blair's book is much more balanced, as is the one I referenced with Love's comments. In fact, Robert Love has done considerable research into the Drumbeat affair; nearly all of it refutes Gannon. "The Chiefs of Naval Operations", Naval Institute Press, and Larrabee's "Commander in Chief" also present a more balanced POV.
King's objections to the British Fleet in the Pacific is documented in his autobio (the "political" aspect); in Buell's biograph (fleet support); Low's booklet on King (operating doctrine). There are other reasons scattered about that are attributed to King. I'll dig around for them.Dukeford (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marshall's chief objection to Eastern Med operations was that they would detract or postpone the Allied invasion of France. King objected to them because he would have to commit resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. However, both were well aware of Churchill's politcal aims in this area, and they both resisted them. When Churchill advocated an Allied invasion of Rhodes, Marshall ended that idea by stating that "Not one American is going to die on that goddamed beach". King actually suspended naval operations in support of the British in Greece, stating that "The U.S. is not fighting a war in that area". This caused the British no end of consternation, and Leahy eventually convinced King to rescind the order. Nevertheless, the points had been made.Dukeford (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is recorded elsewhere. Some writers point out that intervention in SE Europe might have forestalled the subsequent Soviet takeovers and FDR placed too much weight on Stalin's goodwill; perhaps but IMO there wasn't the manpower to support it. "Allied invasion of Cyprus"? Is this a typo? Folks at 137 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - it was Rhodes. The exact quote was "No American boy is going to die...etc." Pogue's "Interviews and Reminiscences". Dukeford (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation 3-41 (FDR's Attack on the German Navy before Pearl Harbor)

It seems like a big oversight not to mention Admiral King's role in operation plan 3-41 where US destroyers were secretly ordered to attack German subs MONTHS before Pearl harbor. http://216.230.103.132/navalhistory/Articles04/NHoconnorFeb-2.htm

If the isolationalist American public became aware of this policy, FDR's head would have been on a plate and Admiral King with him..... 96.226.60.117 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly mention it. My overhaul of the article has only got up to WWII.
It was hardly secret though. After all, it was in the newspapers and FDR told the public on radio. There was a slow drift in the Atlantic from the "Neutrality Patrol" to "Short of War". King's orders had to be politically circumspect, leading to skippers having to figure out what the rules of engagement were when it came such things as co-operation with the British and Canadians, as in the Greer incident. Then there was also the sinking of Rueben James. By this point in 1941, as the article points out, the US public was increasingly in favour of US intervention in Europe. When it came, most Americans believed that the attack on Pearl Harbour had been orchestrated by Hitler. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most Americans thought "neutrality patrols" involved initiating attacks against German subs. 96.226.60.117 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)