Why Were Admiral Kimmel and Gen. Short Punished for Pearl Harbor, Yet Not Gen. MacArthur? An Analysis of Context and Accountability

The differing treatment of Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short compared to General Douglas MacArthur following the Pearl Harbor attacks can be attributed to several factors including the context of their actions, the circumstances surrounding the events, and the political environment of the time.

The Context of Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor Attack: On December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, resulting in significant losses for the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Admiral Kimmel, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, and General Short, Army commander in Hawaii, were criticized for failing to adequately prepare for the attack despite receiving intelligence warnings about potential Japanese aggression.

Failure to Act: Kimmel and Short had access to intelligence that suggested a Japanese attack was imminent. However, they did not take sufficient precautions or prepare their forces for an attack, leading to a devastating surprise that resulted in the loss of ships, aircraft, and lives.

The Context of MacArthur in the Philippines

MacArthurs Situation: General Douglas MacArthur was in command of U.S. forces in the Philippines at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. He received warnings about the potential for war with Japan but faced challenges in preparing his forces.

Timing and Intelligence: Although MacArthur had several hours to prepare after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the intelligence leading up to the attack on the Philippines was not as clear or immediate as that available to Kimmel and Short. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct and immediate threat, while the situation in the Philippines was more complex due to communication issues and the geographical distance from the immediate threat.

Political Considerations

Political Support and Strategic Importance: MacArthur had significant political support and was viewed as a key military leader. His previous successes and the strategic importance of the Philippines may have led to a perception that he was not as culpable for the subsequent failures in the defense of the islands.

Conclusion

In summary, Kimmel and Short were held accountable primarily because they failed to act on clear and immediate intelligence that pointed to an impending attack on Pearl Harbor. In contrast, MacArthur’s situation involved different circumstances, including less direct intelligence and political dynamics that influenced the decision not to hold him responsible to the same extent. The aftermath of these events reflects the complexities of military command and the accountability of leaders in wartime.

References

1. New York Times. (1941). Military Court in Charges Admiral Kimmel and General Short.

2. Feis, H. (1950). The Road to Pearl Harbor. Princeton University Press.

3. McGeorge, T. M. (1993). Inside the Abacus: Personal Thoughts on Strategy, Planning, and Defense Budgets. Harper Row.