Not me. Kimmel had to be sacrificed and Doug was Doug. I never said anything in this thread against either of them. In fact, for all his flaws (and there were plenty) MacArthur managed to (re)capture more territory with fewer casualties than any other Allied commander in the war.
I understand the Kimmel family is working to rehabilitate the guy, and I thinks it’s moving.
I would not be too harsh on both MacArthur and Kimmel. Things are really just different at peacetime. Never mind all the advance notice. It’s simply hard to go into a war footing on the morning of December 7. Why, at Clark airbase, zero fighters and P-40’s were shadowing each other over the airfield, not doing anything. Why? The zeros were under orders to just sit tight and wait for the bombers. The P-40s didn’t quite know what to make of those strange aircraft mossying over the airfield.
Couldn’t it be argued that most other Allied commanders were up against a better equipped and more mechanized opponent than the IJA?
Possibly. Make no mistake - I think MacArthur was a total ass who should have been heeled very early in the war, much less given command in Korea. But he commanded fierce loyalty and the people of the Philippines apparently adored him. Hard to dump an officer like that until they make a major blunder.
Kimmel could have been letter-perfect. It wouldn’t have mattered a lick. Someone had to be blamed for Pearl. Kimmel drew the short straw.
what this lacks in historicity, it certainly makes up for in humor.
How does one define the amount of “territory” that MacArthur captured? Is it just the total land area of all of the flyspeck islands he took, or is it counting the vast empty seas in between them?
Ostfriesland - Sunk as a target ship. No crew, no one firing back
Alabama - sunk as a TARGET ship - no crew, no one firing back. Anchored in place.
Kilkis was being used as a barracks ship - many of her guns had been removed and were being used on land.
Marat - Sunk at dock, wreck continued to be used as a firing platform.
Conte di Cavour - damaged, grounded before sinking completely. Knocked out of war
Littorio - damaged in Taranto raid, not sunk. Out of service for about a year
Was MacArthur an advocate of “island hopping” where some of those flyspeck islands were ignored?
MacArthur actually was involved in the New Guinea campaign and then the Philippines campaign.
The flyspeck islands were taken by the US Marines.
The US had divided the Pacific into two operations, Southwest Pacific under MacArthur and Central Pacific under Nimitz. Map.
#/media/File:Pacific_Theater_Areas;map1.JPG){kind=link}
MacArthur did a version of island hopping, where his forces moved as far as they could be supported by landbased aircraft (since Nimitz had the carriers) and then they would build a new base and move forward.
Of course, this wasn’t a new concept. The Japanese employed this same concept in their invasion of the Dutch East Indies in 1942.
Kimmel and General Short, of course.
MacArthur was better at self promotion than most other commanders and made good press, at a time when the US needed a hero, even a cardboard hero.
I donno about Kimmel and Short. If they had been letter-perfect there is a good chance that things would not have been as bad as it was.
For example,
This was a scripted test, so obviously not fully realistic, but certainly could have been beneficial. However, with the excuse that they lacked officers to man the center, Kimmel and Short decided to wait until after the war to place the AIC in operation.
The USAAF planes had actually been on high alert prior to the attack and then had gone to completely back to a peacetime weekend. Likewise the fleet was in lowered alert. Both services were in low alert status, with AA stations not manned or undermanned, some without the state-of-the-art directors and without ammo or insufficient ammo.
This was despite orders from Washington to consider the Pacific to be at war footing.
None of this would have completely saved the day, but it could have extracted far more damage on the attackers while having mitigated some of the losses.
And against MacA on Luzon and Bataan.
(And against the British in Malaya.)
Sure, but I was replying to: “Hitting ships at sea is not easy and on 7 Dec 1941 no capital ship had ever been destroyed from the air alone.” So those ships (yes, I forget they were able to rescue the Littoria) were capital ships and they were destroyed from the air alone.
The Conte di Cavour was able to fight back, and except for the fact there was a sandbar nearby would have been sunk. The Conte di Cavour was indeed “destroyed” as a fighting ship.
There is a quite a bit of change between Billy Mitchell sinking a ship in the 20s, and the Japanese sinking HMS Prince of Wales. Although it is like the kid who dropped a rock on my windshield from an overpass.
Certainly.
But the point is, battleship fans insisted BBs could *never *be sunk by airpower, too much armor and compartments. That Billy Mitchell “cheated”, etc. The HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse were the result of such head in the sand ignorance.
I was just reading a book about the Pacific War last night and they made a good point I had forgotten. Ships in harbor during peacetime keep their interior hatches open to allow easy movement inside the ship. But ships in battle conditions seal all these hatches to keep each section of the ship independently watertight. That way if one section is breached, it doesn’t sink the entire ship.
The author correctly pointed out that sealing all of these hatches could have easily been done within an hour even by a reduced crew and would have greatly reduced the damage of the attack.
Still wouldn’t have saved the Arizona though. 
And likely not the Oklahoma or Shaw. But it might have lessened the damage to some others.
The guys who were trapped in a gun turret, I believe in the Arizona; I believe there was something about open hatches involved. An officer ordered them to stay in the turret when the ship was sinking.
Kimmel was by no means good, even for a peacetime commander. He was more concerned with being tidy than ready. The worst example is that he had ships moving in on a predictable pattern that the IJA was able to take advantage of (I.e. more ships in dock on weekends).
He was given several warnings, and took no action. At one point when their was a requirement for air patrols to warn of enemy aircraft it was found there weren’t enough planes to do a full search. Kimmel’s solution was to do no air search at all.
I’ve seen some of his grandchild’s ‘efforts’ at clearing his name. A bunch of special pleading and the undercurrent that just because Kimmel was in charge at Pearl didn’t mean he was in charge.