The Accountability of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel

The Accountability of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel has been a topic of heated debate and conflicting narratives ever since the tragic events of December 7, 1941. As history continues to be analyzed, opinions remain divided—was Kimmel a negligent commander or an unfairly blamed scapegoat? To fully understand his role in the attack on Pearl Harbor, we must explore both sides of this enduring controversy.

On the fateful morning of the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel stood at a submarine base near the harbor, witnessing the devastation unfold. Like countless others, he was reportedly stunned and caught off guard. However, critics argue that Kimmel’s position as Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet left no room for such unpreparedness.

According to findings from the Roberts Commission, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kimmel and Army Lieutenant General Walter Short were guilty of dereliction of duty and poor judgment. The commission’s report highlighted several key failures:

Delayed Action: Intelligence reportedly indicated the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at least ten days prior. Critics argue that Kimmel underestimated the threat, focusing instead on domestic sabotage.

Lack of Patrols: Despite losing track of Japanese aircraft carriers, Kimmel failed to order reconnaissance patrols to monitor their movements, a decision that left Pearl Harbor vulnerable.

To many, these oversights were clear indications of Kimmel’s negligence, leading directly to the success of the surprise attack and the loss of thousands of American lives.

On the other hand, a growing body of evidence suggests that Kimmel was unfairly targeted in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Supporters of the admiral argue that he made the best decisions possible given the limited and, in some cases, misleading intelligence available to him.

Kimmel reportedly believed an attack on Wake Island or Midway was more likely than an assault on Pearl Harbor itself. Additionally, many historians argue that even if he had deployed ships to intercept the Japanese fleet, the slower American battleships would have been outmatched, resulting in even greater losses at sea.

For decades, Kimmel’s family and supporters sought to clear his name, arguing that he was used as a scapegoat to divert blame away from larger governmental failures. In 2000, the U.S. Senate voted to exonerate Admiral Kimmel, a decision seen by many as a long-overdue acknowledgment of his unfair treatment.

The story of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel highlights the complexities of leadership in times of crisis and the challenges of assigning blame in the aftermath of tragedy. Visitors to the World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument at Pearl Harbor can explore his legacy, along with the broader story of the attack, through exhibits and memorials that honor the sacrifices of all those involved.

This debate over Admiral Kimmel’s accountability not only sheds light on the events leading up to Pearl Harbor but also serves as a reminder of the enduring quest for truth and justice in the retelling of history.