Kimmel and Short were guilty at Pearl Harbor

[Ridgerunner]

The Philippines and Singapore were bigger losses

Agreed... But Madison Avenue sold Pearl like lemonade on a hot day...

 

[rightwinger]

The Philippines and Singapore were bigger losses

Agreed... But Madison Avenue sold Pearl like lemonade on a hot day...

Pearl led to the loss of three battleships and 3000 lives
Philippines led to the loss of 100,000 lives

 

[Ridgerunner]

Pearl led to the loss of three battleships and 3000 lives
Philippines led to the loss of 100,000 lives

But beer bucket Bob, father to joe six pack only gave 3 shive a gits re: the Philippines and Singapore while the media and Madison ave. raised the level of shive of gits re: Pearl to at least a 12...

 

[harmonica]

Typically military thinking follows previous wars and as rightwinger said no one on our side expected a carrier attack, carrier use and tactics were still in their infancy and our Navy was still stuck on battleship war tactics. The Japanese attack on Pearl opened everyone's eyes.

exactly--but Taranto and the war warning ----- they should know military history--that's their job:

commencement of the Russo-Japanese War. It began with a surprise night attack by a squadron of Japanese destroyers

Battle of Port Arthur - Wikipedia

In this connection it should be noted that Vice Admiral Bellinger, who on 7 December 1941 was commanding officer of Task Force 9, comprising the patrol planes of the Pacific Fleet, testified that he was unaware of the war warning until after the attack on Pearl Harbor (p. 498).

Admiral Smith said that following the 27 November war warning the establishment of aircraft patrols from Oahu would have been an appropriate defensive deployment to carry out the initial tasks assigned by the Pacific Fleet war plans (p. 372). However, he did not remember any discussions with Admiral Kimmel or Captain McMorris regarding the failure to direct such measures

XXII. ACTION TAKEN BY ADMIRAL KIMMEL—EXTENT OF RECONNAISSANCE
and this is a way to keep them from being sabotaged = put them in the air

to take defensive deployment, Admiral McMorris said that they understood that Washington wanted to avoid any overt acts and that they were not so uncertain about this as to ask the Department for a clarification.

recon is not overt acts
XXII. ACTION TAKEN BY ADMIRAL KIMMEL—EXTENT OF RECONNAISSANCE

Once again hindsight is usually 20/20 and often assumptive when looking at motivations and reasons for actions, dis-actions. This is especially true when done so by non-historians and by historians who have no grasp of the psychologies and cultures of the period/people involved.
Also once again the Japanese attack on Pearl using carrier based aircraft IN SUCH HUGE NUMBERS was undreamed of by our top brass all the way up to the president. As for putting the plains in the air to protect from sabotage? You're making the same assumptive mistake most people make, projection of modern common sense tactics into the past. The 1942 tactic was to park the planes the way they were parked on the ground so they could be more easily watch by the sentries who were on duty.
If you look at the History link in my very first response it basically show what the so called "war warning" really was so it's obvious you're misreading what it meant to the people involved in 1942.

How would Kimmel and Short have defended their actions to superiors if they were subjected to major terrorist attacks or sabotage and they explained they were defending against a possible multi carrier attack from thousands of miles away that never came

1. terrorists attacks do not win wars
2. they did not do that
3. the bigger threat was the carrier attack
4. there were multiple ways to guard against both
etc etc

The Pearl Harbor attack didn’t win the war
They did defend against sabotage and acts of terror
The carrier attack was the bigger threat but less likely
Some defenses are contradictory. You can’t do both

It was up to the NAVY to define the threat and recommend defenses

Pearl Harbor was only one of the targets. The Philippines and Singapore were bigger losses

are you saying they should've not have even cared if the IJN attacked PH??!!!
OBVIOUSLY the carrier attack was MORE likely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahha
there were NO sabotage attacks

 

[Ringel05]

exactly--but Taranto and the war warning ----- they should know military history--that's their job:
Battle of Port Arthur - Wikipedia
XXII. ACTION TAKEN BY ADMIRAL KIMMEL—EXTENT OF RECONNAISSANCE
and this is a way to keep them from being sabotaged = put them in the air
recon is not overt acts
XXII. ACTION TAKEN BY ADMIRAL KIMMEL—EXTENT OF RECONNAISSANCE

Once again hindsight is usually 20/20 and often assumptive when looking at motivations and reasons for actions, dis-actions. This is especially true when done so by non-historians and by historians who have no grasp of the psychologies and cultures of the period/people involved.
Also once again the Japanese attack on Pearl using carrier based aircraft IN SUCH HUGE NUMBERS was undreamed of by our top brass all the way up to the president. As for putting the plains in the air to protect from sabotage? You're making the same assumptive mistake most people make, projection of modern common sense tactics into the past. The 1942 tactic was to park the planes the way they were parked on the ground so they could be more easily watch by the sentries who were on duty.
If you look at the History link in my very first response it basically show what the so called "war warning" really was so it's obvious you're misreading what it meant to the people involved in 1942.

How would Kimmel and Short have defended their actions to superiors if they were subjected to major terrorist attacks or sabotage and they explained they were defending against a possible multi carrier attack from thousands of miles away that never came

1. terrorists attacks do not win wars
2. they did not do that
3. the bigger threat was the carrier attack
4. there were multiple ways to guard against both
etc etc

The Pearl Harbor attack didn’t win the war
They did defend against sabotage and acts of terror
The carrier attack was the bigger threat but less likely
Some defenses are contradictory. You can’t do both

It was up to the NAVY to define the threat and recommend defenses

Pearl Harbor was only one of the targets. The Philippines and Singapore were bigger losses

are you saying they should've not have even cared if the IJN attacked PH??!!!
OBVIOUSLY the carrier attack was MORE likely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahha
there were NO sabotage attacks

 

[rightwinger]

exactly--but Taranto and the war warning ----- they should know military history--that's their job:
Battle of Port Arthur - Wikipedia
XXII. ACTION TAKEN BY ADMIRAL KIMMEL—EXTENT OF RECONNAISSANCE
and this is a way to keep them from being sabotaged = put them in the air
recon is not overt acts
XXII. ACTION TAKEN BY ADMIRAL KIMMEL—EXTENT OF RECONNAISSANCE

Once again hindsight is usually 20/20 and often assumptive when looking at motivations and reasons for actions, dis-actions. This is especially true when done so by non-historians and by historians who have no grasp of the psychologies and cultures of the period/people involved.
Also once again the Japanese attack on Pearl using carrier based aircraft IN SUCH HUGE NUMBERS was undreamed of by our top brass all the way up to the president. As for putting the plains in the air to protect from sabotage? You're making the same assumptive mistake most people make, projection of modern common sense tactics into the past. The 1942 tactic was to park the planes the way they were parked on the ground so they could be more easily watch by the sentries who were on duty.
If you look at the History link in my very first response it basically show what the so called "war warning" really was so it's obvious you're misreading what it meant to the people involved in 1942.

How would Kimmel and Short have defended their actions to superiors if they were subjected to major terrorist attacks or sabotage and they explained they were defending against a possible multi carrier attack from thousands of miles away that never came

1. terrorists attacks do not win wars
2. they did not do that
3. the bigger threat was the carrier attack
4. there were multiple ways to guard against both
etc etc

The Pearl Harbor attack didn’t win the war
They did defend against sabotage and acts of terror
The carrier attack was the bigger threat but less likely
Some defenses are contradictory. You can’t do both

It was up to the NAVY to define the threat and recommend defenses

Pearl Harbor was only one of the targets. The Philippines and Singapore were bigger losses

are you saying they should've not have even cared if the IJN attacked PH??!!!
OBVIOUSLY the carrier attack was MORE likely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahha
there were NO sabotage attacks

If that was the threat, the Navy should have changed their doctrine away from battleships and towards carriers

It wasn’t till AFTER the attacks that the Navy criticized Short and Kimmel

 

[harmonica]

NO ONE thought Pearl could be attacked??
NO ONE envisaged a multi-carrier attack???
!!!!????!!
the Japanese did--didn't they
!!!

hahahahahahahah
....like I said, some people are stupid/not street smart/are not good at their position-duty-etc
...Kimmel and Short were outdone

 

[harmonica]

..they were given a war warning, but they did not act like it.........
.....they acted as if they were in peacetime --all major ships in the harbor/no long range--[ any sort ] of air recon ....no type of air detection/alarm/warning system like they had in England
.....Sunday--a real military man [ someone with military sense ] would think Sunday a perfect day for an attack--especially after given a war warning
.....one military axiom is you don't act on what you think the enemy will do, but what he is capable of --so if you are stationed at Pearl, you should think ''can the Japanese attack Pearl?'' YES
...but many professional police/military/CIA/etc are not ''street'' smart---prime example is the Camp Chapman attack where the CIA brought a ''good'' foreigner into the circle---which is one of the most basic no-nos of spying

Despite the fact that so many in positions of command anticipated a Japanese attack, especially given the failure of diplomacy (Japan refused U.S. demands to withdraw from both the Axis pact and occupied territories in China and Indochina), no one expected Hawaii as the target.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-war-warning-is-sent-to-commanders-in-the-pacific

It was a failure from the top down, everyone believed Hawaii was too far away and too strong to be attacked.
Kimmel and Short were scapegoats.

Now one commander that was guilty as hell was MacArthur, he was told of the Japanese attack on Pearl and ordered to prepare his air forces accordingly and expect an attack from the Japanese. He acknowledged those orders then did nothing, the Army Air Corps in the Philippines was caught on the ground the same way (and in the same parked configurations) as in Hawaii but obviously he did not suffer the same fate as Kimmel and Short.
Also, specifically in Africa the main ground commander, Fredendall was still "stuck" in WWI with his thinking and also tended to play his subordinate commanders off against each other while making no real decisions. Things obviously changed when Patton replaced him.
We were litterally "An Army at Dawn" as Atkinson wrote about in an excellent book with the same title.
We also had a lot of learning to do in the pacific in all branches of service specifically with moribund attitudes and ideas at the upper echelons of military command and control.

they had ''peacetime'' mindset--after a war warning --after Taranto
.....--I remember reading in the mid 80's about how the Israelis defended against airplanes used as weapons ......but then after 9-11, many professionals never even thought of it ---well, I knew about them in the mid 80's as an mere E2 in the military....the professionals should've been thinking about that--just as Short and Kimmel should have known about Taranto = and know Pearl was vulnerable

Typically military thinking follows previous wars and as rightwinger said no one on our side expected a carrier attack, carrier use and tactics were still in their infancy and our Navy was still stuck on battleship war tactics. The Japanese attack on Pearl opened everyone's eyes.

see post # 47
.....yes--'''typical''/mediocre/''ignorant''/slow/wrong/ etc military thinking ---to mediocre military men

 

[harmonica]

goes both ways--doesn't it

How so?

see post # 19

We were surprised

There were no significant directives out of the Navy warning of a serious threat of a Japanese carrier attack.
Taranto was twenty something planes. Pearl Harbor was 350 planes. The magnitude of the attack was unprecedented

so if we were surprised by 30 planes that would be different than being surprised by 350??!! --being surprised does not have different levels

Assembling that many carrier based planes and covering thousands of miles of ocean was unprecedented

We were surprised, it had never been done before.....or after

see post # 47

 

[rightwinger]

NO ONE thought Pearl could be attacked??
NO ONE envisaged a multi-carrier attack???
!!!!????!!
the Japanese did--didn't they
!!!

hahahahahahahah
....like I said, some people are stupid/not street smart/are not good at their position-duty-etc
...Kimmel and Short were outdone

What about MacArthur who had 20 hours advanced notice?

 

[harmonica]

NO ONE thought Pearl could be attacked??
NO ONE envisaged a multi-carrier attack???
!!!!????!!
the Japanese did--didn't they
!!!

hahahahahahahah
....like I said, some people are stupid/not street smart/are not good at their position-duty-etc
...Kimmel and Short were outdone

What about MacArthur who had 20 hours advanced notice?

Mac was a big loser--not only in WW2 but also in Korea

 

[rightwinger]

NO ONE thought Pearl could be attacked??
NO ONE envisaged a multi-carrier attack???
!!!!????!!
the Japanese did--didn't they
!!!

hahahahahahahah
....like I said, some people are stupid/not street smart/are not good at their position-duty-etc
...Kimmel and Short were outdone

What about MacArthur who had 20 hours advanced notice?

Mac was a big loser--not only in WW2 but also in Korea

Mac was a hero after losing the Philippines
He was also a hero in Korea for bringing the Chinese into the war

 

[harmonica]

NO ONE thought Pearl could be attacked??
NO ONE envisaged a multi-carrier attack???
!!!!????!!
the Japanese did--didn't they
!!!

hahahahahahahah
....like I said, some people are stupid/not street smart/are not good at their position-duty-etc
...Kimmel and Short were outdone

What about MacArthur who had 20 hours advanced notice?

Mac was a big loser--not only in WW2 but also in Korea

Mac was a hero after losing the Philippines
He was also a hero in Korea for bringing the Chinese into the war

..one of the worst disasters in US military history was when a whole Corps was thrown off the battle peninsula in Korea ---and the rest in big retreat/etc --because of Mac

 

[rightwinger]

NO ONE thought Pearl could be attacked??
NO ONE envisaged a multi-carrier attack???
!!!!????!!
the Japanese did--didn't they
!!!

hahahahahahahah
....like I said, some people are stupid/not street smart/are not good at their position-duty-etc
...Kimmel and Short were outdone

What about MacArthur who had 20 hours advanced notice?

Mac was a big loser--not only in WW2 but also in Korea

Mac was a hero after losing the Philippines
He was also a hero in Korea for bringing the Chinese into the war

..one of the worst disasters in US military history was when a whole Corps was thrown off the battle peninsula in Korea ---and the rest in big retreat/etc --because of Mac

They still gave him a ticker tape parade

 

[harmonica]

NO ONE thought Pearl could be attacked??
NO ONE envisaged a multi-carrier attack???
!!!!????!!
the Japanese did--didn't they
!!!

hahahahahahahah
....like I said, some people are stupid/not street smart/are not good at their position-duty-etc
...Kimmel and Short were outdone

What about MacArthur who had 20 hours advanced notice?

Mac was a big loser--not only in WW2 but also in Korea

Mac was a hero after losing the Philippines
He was also a hero in Korea for bringing the Chinese into the war

..one of the worst disasters in US military history was when a whole Corps was thrown off the battle peninsula in Korea ---and the rest in big retreat/etc --because of Mac

They still gave him a ticker tape parade

.....probably because of his ''reputation'' from the big/''important''/NOT forgotten war =WW2 --unlike Korea--the small ''police'' action --at that time

 

[Ringel05]

..they were given a war warning, but they did not act like it.........
.....they acted as if they were in peacetime --all major ships in the harbor/no long range--[ any sort ] of air recon ....no type of air detection/alarm/warning system like they had in England
.....Sunday--a real military man [ someone with military sense ] would think Sunday a perfect day for an attack--especially after given a war warning
.....one military axiom is you don't act on what you think the enemy will do, but what he is capable of --so if you are stationed at Pearl, you should think ''can the Japanese attack Pearl?'' YES
...but many professional police/military/CIA/etc are not ''street'' smart---prime example is the Camp Chapman attack where the CIA brought a ''good'' foreigner into the circle---which is one of the most basic no-nos of spying

Despite the fact that so many in positions of command anticipated a Japanese attack, especially given the failure of diplomacy (Japan refused U.S. demands to withdraw from both the Axis pact and occupied territories in China and Indochina), no one expected Hawaii as the target.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-war-warning-is-sent-to-commanders-in-the-pacific

It was a failure from the top down, everyone believed Hawaii was too far away and too strong to be attacked.
Kimmel and Short were scapegoats.

Now one commander that was guilty as hell was MacArthur, he was told of the Japanese attack on Pearl and ordered to prepare his air forces accordingly and expect an attack from the Japanese. He acknowledged those orders then did nothing, the Army Air Corps in the Philippines was caught on the ground the same way (and in the same parked configurations) as in Hawaii but obviously he did not suffer the same fate as Kimmel and Short.
Also, specifically in Africa the main ground commander, Fredendall was still "stuck" in WWI with his thinking and also tended to play his subordinate commanders off against each other while making no real decisions. Things obviously changed when Patton replaced him.
We were litterally "An Army at Dawn" as Atkinson wrote about in an excellent book with the same title.
We also had a lot of learning to do in the pacific in all branches of service specifically with moribund attitudes and ideas at the upper echelons of military command and control.

they had ''peacetime'' mindset--after a war warning --after Taranto
.....--I remember reading in the mid 80's about how the Israelis defended against airplanes used as weapons ......but then after 9-11, many professionals never even thought of it ---well, I knew about them in the mid 80's as an mere E2 in the military....the professionals should've been thinking about that--just as Short and Kimmel should have known about Taranto = and know Pearl was vulnerable

Typically military thinking follows previous wars and as rightwinger said no one on our side expected a carrier attack, carrier use and tactics were still in their infancy and our Navy was still stuck on battleship war tactics. The Japanese attack on Pearl opened everyone's eyes.

see post # 47
.....yes--'''typical''/mediocre/''ignorant''/slow/wrong/ etc military thinking ---to mediocre military men

 

[harmonica]

Once again hindsight is usually 20/20 and often assumptive when looking at motivations and reasons for actions, dis-actions. This is especially true when done so by non-historians and by historians who have no grasp of the psychologies and cultures of the period/people involved.
Also once again the Japanese attack on Pearl using carrier based aircraft IN SUCH HUGE NUMBERS was undreamed of by our top brass all the way up to the president. As for putting the plains in the air to protect from sabotage? You're making the same assumptive mistake most people make, projection of modern common sense tactics into the past. The 1942 tactic was to park the planes the way they were parked on the ground so they could be more easily watch by the sentries who were on duty.
If you look at the History link in my very first response it basically show what the so called "war warning" really was so it's obvious you're misreading what it meant to the people involved in 1942.

How would Kimmel and Short have defended their actions to superiors if they were subjected to major terrorist attacks or sabotage and they explained they were defending against a possible multi carrier attack from thousands of miles away that never came

1. terrorists attacks do not win wars
2. they did not do that
3. the bigger threat was the carrier attack
4. there were multiple ways to guard against both
etc etc

The Pearl Harbor attack didn’t win the war
They did defend against sabotage and acts of terror
The carrier attack was the bigger threat but less likely
Some defenses are contradictory. You can’t do both

It was up to the NAVY to define the threat and recommend defenses

Pearl Harbor was only one of the targets. The Philippines and Singapore were bigger losses

are you saying they should've not have even cared if the IJN attacked PH??!!!
OBVIOUSLY the carrier attack was MORE likely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahha
there were NO sabotage attacks

.....kind of like the dumbass Russians that were soundly defeated/outmaneuvered/out-''generaled''/etc by the Germans
...and the French in 1941 --one of the largest armies [ with England!better tanks/etc ] defeated quickly and soundly by the Germans --TWO countries defeated by ONE --defeated by better generals/tactics/etc
..only when the US got in and hitler interfered with strategy/etc--did the Germans have no chance .....only when the industrial might of the US [3 times more than Germany ] did Germany have no chance ......Germany's industrial might almost the same as Russia ..but Russia had a bigger population
etc
.....Kesselring also did a fantastic job in Italy as the Allies had logistics/naval and air superiority
Grim Economic Realities

 

[harmonica]

..they were given a war warning, but they did not act like it.........
.....they acted as if they were in peacetime --all major ships in the harbor/no long range--[ any sort ] of air recon ....no type of air detection/alarm/warning system like they had in England
.....Sunday--a real military man [ someone with military sense ] would think Sunday a perfect day for an attack--especially after given a war warning
.....one military axiom is you don't act on what you think the enemy will do, but what he is capable of --so if you are stationed at Pearl, you should think ''can the Japanese attack Pearl?'' YES
...but many professional police/military/CIA/etc are not ''street'' smart---prime example is the Camp Chapman attack where the CIA brought a ''good'' foreigner into the circle---which is one of the most basic no-nos of spying

Despite the fact that so many in positions of command anticipated a Japanese attack, especially given the failure of diplomacy (Japan refused U.S. demands to withdraw from both the Axis pact and occupied territories in China and Indochina), no one expected Hawaii as the target.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-war-warning-is-sent-to-commanders-in-the-pacific

It was a failure from the top down, everyone believed Hawaii was too far away and too strong to be attacked.
Kimmel and Short were scapegoats.

Now one commander that was guilty as hell was MacArthur, he was told of the Japanese attack on Pearl and ordered to prepare his air forces accordingly and expect an attack from the Japanese. He acknowledged those orders then did nothing, the Army Air Corps in the Philippines was caught on the ground the same way (and in the same parked configurations) as in Hawaii but obviously he did not suffer the same fate as Kimmel and Short.
Also, specifically in Africa the main ground commander, Fredendall was still "stuck" in WWI with his thinking and also tended to play his subordinate commanders off against each other while making no real decisions. Things obviously changed when Patton replaced him.
We were litterally "An Army at Dawn" as Atkinson wrote about in an excellent book with the same title.
We also had a lot of learning to do in the pacific in all branches of service specifically with moribund attitudes and ideas at the upper echelons of military command and control.

they had ''peacetime'' mindset--after a war warning --after Taranto
.....--I remember reading in the mid 80's about how the Israelis defended against airplanes used as weapons ......but then after 9-11, many professionals never even thought of it ---well, I knew about them in the mid 80's as an mere E2 in the military....the professionals should've been thinking about that--just as Short and Kimmel should have known about Taranto = and know Pearl was vulnerable

Typically military thinking follows previous wars and as rightwinger said no one on our side expected a carrier attack, carrier use and tactics were still in their infancy and our Navy was still stuck on battleship war tactics. The Japanese attack on Pearl opened everyone's eyes.

see post # 47
.....yes--'''typical''/mediocre/''ignorant''/slow/wrong/ etc military thinking ---to mediocre military men

impressive evidence [ hahahaha ] you have there = crap

 

[Ringel05]

How would Kimmel and Short have defended their actions to superiors if they were subjected to major terrorist attacks or sabotage and they explained they were defending against a possible multi carrier attack from thousands of miles away that never came

1. terrorists attacks do not win wars
2. they did not do that
3. the bigger threat was the carrier attack
4. there were multiple ways to guard against both
etc etc

The Pearl Harbor attack didn’t win the war
They did defend against sabotage and acts of terror
The carrier attack was the bigger threat but less likely
Some defenses are contradictory. You can’t do both

It was up to the NAVY to define the threat and recommend defenses

Pearl Harbor was only one of the targets. The Philippines and Singapore were bigger losses

are you saying they should've not have even cared if the IJN attacked PH??!!!
OBVIOUSLY the carrier attack was MORE likely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahha
there were NO sabotage attacks

.....kind of like the dumbass Russians that were soundly defeated/outmaneuvered/out-''generaled''/etc by the Germans
...and the French in 1941 --one of the largest armies [ with England!better tanks/etc ] defeated quickly and soundly by the Germans --TWO countries defeated by ONE --defeated by better generals/tactics/etc
..only when the US got in and hitler interfered with strategy/etc--did the Germans have no chance .....only when the industrial might of the US [3 times more than Germany ] did Germany have no chance ......Germany's industrial might almost the same as Russia ..but Russia had a bigger population
etc
.....Kesselring also did a fantastic job in Italy as the Allies had logistics/naval and air superiority
Grim Economic Realities

Yeah, so? And this has what to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? I mean other than the fact the Germans (for the most part) modernized their tactics in the 1930s and again as they learned throughout the war. The overall German planning was nothing more than an adapted version of the Sheffield Plan from WWI, what they did that was completely modern for it's time was combine their different forces to act in unison. Guderian's "race to the sea" during the initial phase of Case Yellow actually scared the hell out of the brass and he was ordered numerous times to stop and wait for the infantry to catch up, orders he basically disobeyed. This happened again during Operation Barbarossa where he and others were reigned in by the more conservative thinking brass.
Kesselring, "Smiling Albert", was a very good commander but what saved his bacon in Italy was terrain and a comedy of errors made by allied commanders. Under different terrain, different circumstances things might have been different, we don't know.
But of course you're seeing it all in retrospect then projecting without any real knowledge of the subject.

 

[Ringel05]

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-war-warning-is-sent-to-commanders-in-the-pacific

It was a failure from the top down, everyone believed Hawaii was too far away and too strong to be attacked.
Kimmel and Short were scapegoats.

Now one commander that was guilty as hell was MacArthur, he was told of the Japanese attack on Pearl and ordered to prepare his air forces accordingly and expect an attack from the Japanese. He acknowledged those orders then did nothing, the Army Air Corps in the Philippines was caught on the ground the same way (and in the same parked configurations) as in Hawaii but obviously he did not suffer the same fate as Kimmel and Short.
Also, specifically in Africa the main ground commander, Fredendall was still "stuck" in WWI with his thinking and also tended to play his subordinate commanders off against each other while making no real decisions. Things obviously changed when Patton replaced him.
We were litterally "An Army at Dawn" as Atkinson wrote about in an excellent book with the same title.
We also had a lot of learning to do in the pacific in all branches of service specifically with moribund attitudes and ideas at the upper echelons of military command and control.

they had ''peacetime'' mindset--after a war warning --after Taranto
.....--I remember reading in the mid 80's about how the Israelis defended against airplanes used as weapons ......but then after 9-11, many professionals never even thought of it ---well, I knew about them in the mid 80's as an mere E2 in the military....the professionals should've been thinking about that--just as Short and Kimmel should have known about Taranto = and know Pearl was vulnerable

Typically military thinking follows previous wars and as rightwinger said no one on our side expected a carrier attack, carrier use and tactics were still in their infancy and our Navy was still stuck on battleship war tactics. The Japanese attack on Pearl opened everyone's eyes.

see post # 47
.....yes--'''typical''/mediocre/''ignorant''/slow/wrong/ etc military thinking ---to mediocre military men

impressive evidence [ hahahaha ] you have there = crap

Considering that I'm dealing with what is most likely a high school student who may have taken a little high school history then read a revisionist book and thinks he's now an expert...........