This coming Sunday marks the 62nd anniversary of the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor. Until 9/11, the attack represented the worst intelligence
failure in American history. At 2,488 killed in action, it was the highest
single-day loss of American lives in the 20th century. Now 62 years on,
the number of survivors is dwindling; by last count, the Pearl Harbor
Survivors Association estimates about 6,500 still alive. But like other
momentous events in American history, the attack on Pearl Harbor remains
surrounded in controversy and mythology.
Conspiracy theorists still try to pin the blame on President Franklin
D. Roosevelt for sacrificing the Pacific fleet in an attempt to draw the
Japanese into war. Over the years, proponents of these theories have been
able to produce precious little hard evidence of such a conspiracy. One
key document to emerge in recent years suggestive of such a conspiracy was
a 1940 memo that does speak of enticing Japan "to commit an overt act of
war" against the United States. But the memo�s author was a mid-level
naval intelligence officer working in the Far Eastern Section of the
Office of Naval Intelligence. There is no evidence that his memo ever made
its way to the Roosevelt White House; in fact, it seems never to have left
ONI.
But there is another controversy that should have been put to rest long
ago. That concerns history�s judgment of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel,
Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet at the time of the Japanese
attack. The Roberts Commission, formed in December 1941 to investigate the
tragedy, pronounced Kimmel "derelict in his duty" and "solely responsible
for the success of the Japanese attack." Although ten subsequent official
investigations or inquiries would exonerate Kimmel, the verdict of the
Roberts Commission would continue to dog him throughout his life.
Surviving family members recalled that he "came home a beaten man. Totally
ashamed, his honor and reputation completely denigrated."
But two years later, he would learn that the Navy Department in
Washington had withheld information from him vital to the defense of
Pearl. That revelation launched Kimmel on a lifelong crusade to clear his
name and restore his honor. Surviving family members carried on the fight
after Kimmel�s death in 1968. Over the years, as archives yielded ever
more records from the period, the case against Kimmel was effectively
demolished.
For example, no image has persisted longer than that of the fleet�s
unreadiness to confront the Japanese attack. It was perpetuated by films
like "From Here to Eternity" and books like Gordon Prange�s 1981 At
Dawn We Slept. But recently uncovered U.S. Navy records show that
image to be nothing more than a myth. In fact, according to Pearl Harbor
historian Professor Michael Gannon, the fleet was a "beehive of activity"
that morning. Kimmel had upgraded the fleet�s readiness beginning in
mid-October and had ensured that his ships were prepared to "repel enemy
aircraft." The best testimony to Kimmel�s readiness came from the Japanese
admiral who commanded the carrier-based air forces in the attack. In his
after-action report, he wrote, "the enemy�s anti-aircraft fire reaction
had been so prompt as virtually to nullify the advantage of surprise." And
Kimmel�s successor, Admiral Chester Nimitz, made no changes to Kimmel�s
readiness orders despite being convinced that the Japanese would return
for another attack.
In May 2000, the family thought that victory was within reach. The
Congress unanimously adopted an amendment to the 2001 defense bill
requesting the President advance Kimmel, and his Army counterpart Maj.
General Walter Short, to their highest wartime ranks as authorized by the
1947 Officer Personnel Act. The 2000 congressional action required only
that President Bill Clinton place Kimmel on the military�s retired list
with the rank of admiral. No monetary benefit would accrue to the Kimmel
family. But Clinton ignored the request during his last four months in
office, although he found time to issue more than 140 pardons, including
one for his drug-dealing brother.
The family had high hopes for the Bush administration. Inexplicably,
the administration has continued to stonewall the family by claiming that
"no new evidence has emerged to consider overturning decisions made more
than 50 years." That position defies logic and ignores the mountains of
"new evidence" uncovered by historians like Professor Gannon. The action
has been repeatedly endorsed by the likes of the VFW, the Retired Officers
Association, and others. Most significantly, the Pearl Harbor Survivors
Association endorsed the action more than 15 years ago. Isn�t it time that
this miscarriage of justice be rectified?
Notra Trulock is Associate Editor of the AIM Report.
| 
