Short, Kimmel Pearl Harbor trials unlikely (11-25-44)

The Pittsburgh Press (November 26, 1944)

Service journal says –
Short, Kimmel Pearl Harbor trials unlikely

Vindication hinted after latest probes

Washington (UP) – (Nov. 25)
The unofficial Army and Navy Journal said today that, “according to gossip in well-informed Washington circles,” the Navy Board which recently reinvestigated the Pearl Harbor disaster did not find cause for instituting any court-martial proceedings against RAdm. Husband E. Kimmel, who was the naval commander there Dec. 7, 1941.

The Journal also predicted that it was unlikely that Maj. Gen. Walter C. Short, the Army commander, would be court-martialed. If proceedings should be held in Gen. Short’s case, it said, his friends were confident he would be vindicated.

Roberts Commission findings supported

The Journal said the Navy Board, like the Roberts Commission which investigated Pearl Harbor immediately after the disaster, had found that it was the Army’s function to insure the base against attack. It was the Navy’s function to support the Army indirectly by operations at sea and directly with such equipment as it had ashore and afloat.

A new Army Board of Inquiry was said by the Journal to support the findings of the Roberts Commission that the War Department had failed to comment upon the measures which Gen. Short had reported he had taken to guard the base. These measures were reportedly in conformity with instructions given him not to take measures which would alarm the civilian population.

Army, Navy warned

Concerning Adm. Kimmel, the Journal said:
“Since the Army was responsible for the aircraft warning system, he assumed that it was in operation, which was not the case, and this point doubtless was fairly explored by the Army Board. The truth seems to be that both the Army and Navy command did not believe that an attack by the Japanese was in prospect, although warnings of its possibility had been communicated by the War and Navy Departments.”

The Journal said it was not known whether the Army and Navy boards commented on the charge that Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short failed to consult frequently, though it was known the two officers consulted on Nov. 27 and Dec. 1, 2 and 3, 1941, especially with reference to the possibility of replacing Marine Corps planes with Army planes on Wake and Midway Islands.

The Journal continued:

However, the usage at that time tended to separate the Army and the Navy, a usage which was discarded immediately. Today there is complete cooperation and coordination between the services, and enabling it is the designation of an Army or a Navy officer in command.

The Journal said jealousies still exist between the two services but are suppressed by the High Command policy.

Should Adm. Kimmel be vindicated, he will expect to be restored to active duty, the Journal said.

Short retired

As Gen. Short retired two years ago, his vindication would not result in his return to active duty.

The reports of the separate Army and Navy boards were filed a few weeks ago with the Secretaries of War and Navy. Some official indication of the conclusions may be given soon.