Talk:Husband E. Kimmel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Husband E. Kimmel article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Realities 2 Scapegoats? Did the leadership ignore Naval air power threats? 3 Citation Needed 4 Nits

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Citation Needed

"During the attack a spent bullet harmlessly bounced off Kimmel. Later he was to say that he wished it had killed him."

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)

[edit] 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)