Re: POLITICIANS AND OTHERS IN GAMING

"Imre A. Szabo" wrote:

> He didn't need the Purple Intercepts, and he never should have trusted
his
> government to give him accurate information in the first place.  What
he did
> know was that the U.S. Navy had conducted exercises of carrier air
raids on
> San Diego, the Panamal Cannal, and Pearl Harbor.  The results were
that it
> was a fairly easy thing to do.  It is an exception when government
gives
> accurate information, not the rule.  The comparison stands.

I disagree (obviously).  As commander of the Hawaiin Department and
Pacific
Fleet, he damned well should have expected accurate information from the
government, and it should've been forthcoming.	In addition, if you're
going to
lay blame at his feet primarily because of the fleet exercises (and the
theory
of a carrier-based attack which had been posited as early as the
1920's), then
the only man in the command structure of the US Navy who should've been
blameless should be Admiral Richardson (who Kimmel replaced) because
Richardson
didn't want the fleet moored at Pearl Harbor precisely because he was
afraid of
an attack that might bottle up the fleet.  Admiral King also should've
known
that it was an "easy thing to do" as you put it, and therefore also
shares the
blame.	The comparison does NOT stand, since Kimmel didn't have the
information
that others did.  All he had was a vague warning of some type of
possible
trouble in the Pacific, but he didn't think that the Japanese had the
capability
to strike at Pearl Harbor.  In that respect, he is no more or less to
blame than
anyone above him in the command structure.

Mark

>
>