Talk:Husband E. Kimmel

message: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, Kimmel and Short could never have held a major command after Pearl Harbor.  Things went very wrong and it happened on their watch.  Whether they personally deserved to have their careers ruined is another issue entirely; I rather suspect not. Cranston Lamont 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realities 

message: "During the attack a spent bullet harmlessly bounced off Kimmel. Later he was to say that he wished it had killed him."
What is a "spent" bullet?  Could anyone expect a non-fired (non-spent?) bullet to come through the window?  Why is this odd wording used in the movie when virtually all of those actors were in the service? 2601:41:4003:B7F0:B6D7:2F56:8CFA:41F8 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A spent bullet is one that's lost most of its speed, by distance or passing through some object. 2A02:2788:1008:6D6:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Well, it is in the movie, Tora, Tora, Tora.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: What Kimmel said when he was hit by a bullet was "It would have been merciful had it killed me." I believe this quote can be found in Prange's work on the Pearl Harbor attack.
Also, Kimmel's son was not killed by the mine.  He escaped his sinking submarine, was captured by the Japanese, and, along with other American POWs, was doused in gasoline and burned to death at the POW prison at Puerto Princessa, Philippines.  I believe this is documented in Clay Blair's massive book on the American submarine service during the war.
128.165.87.144 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, p.688; it ff an airstrike on Palawan. Robalo should never have been using a mined channel, if not for that unscrupulous nitwit Christie.  Trekphiler (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nits 

message: What did Kimmel do before he was CINCPAC?  Trekphiler (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career officer 

message: Tom Kimmel, grandson of Husband Kimmel, has presented information about potential FBI and Justice Department involvement in a Pearl Harbor coverup.  I'm sure Tom will correct me if I have summarized incorrectly.  This clearly presents a conflict of interest concern so it needs to be handled carefully.  I have suggested that his research can be included in some form so long as it is backed up by reliable third party sources.  There is no reason for Tom's research to be excluded so long as it is properly presented per WP:COS and providing that it cannot be squarely classified as a fringe theory.  I expect that Tom will join the discussion here.  Here is the text that has been proposed for inclusion by Tom Kimmel:
On December 12, 1941, the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover told the President of the United States that an FBI source reported in strictest confidence that: Army and Navy Intelligence in Washington, DC had learned the entire Japanese attack plan days before the attack, and sent it to Admiral Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, who did nothing about it.
Mr. Hoover soon supplied this “reliably reported” information to Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen Roberts, Chairman of the Roberts Commission, the tribunal immediately appointed to investigate the Pearl Harbor disaster. Justice Roberts tried but could not prove that Kimmel had this information and failed to act on it. But then Roberts failed to follow Mr. Hoover’s logically suggested written investigative leads in Washington, D.C., as to whether this information was available in Washington and simply not sent to Hawaii. And then later, Roberts inexplicably lied to Congress about where he got the original allegation against Kimmel.
-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New analysis of FBI and Justice Dept involvement 

message: "Even if Kimmel did react, it is not clear the results would have been any better for the Americans" should probably read "Even if Kimmel *had* *reacted*, [...] There is a significant difference between those two variations, both grammatically and semantically speaking. I cannot change this, however, since I can only assume, but do not know for sure what exactly ist meant. The former entails action by Kimmel, the latter inaction...85.179.77.53 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Error 

message: Dear Sir, the description of the fate of Admiral Kimmel and General Short after the devastating, yet strategically useless Japanese tactical victory should at least mention the extensive discussion and revelation provided by John Toland in his book "Infamy".Rarely before or after has a more thorough description of the roughly 9 committees dealing with the case of Adm. Kimmel  been provided to the interested public.The mere fact that "East-Wind-Rain" is at no place mentioned, though clearly of considerable importance to the case calls for an  immediate improvement.At least a cross-reference to John Toland's work or the discussion of the decyphered Japanese message and the astonishing fact that this information had not been  forwarded to Pearl Harbor thus leaving Admiral Kimmel in the dark, could help readers to extend their knowledge by further reading. I'am just a reader and am thus limited to this kind of appeal.
Gunter H. Danner-Goldstein, PhD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.61.47 (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Toland was a revisionist. His claims, like the claims of others taking the same position, are entirely without merit. The "East wind, rain" message was never sent. And this nonsensical proposition is exhaustively canvassed here. You may, if you prefer, msg my talk page, since the debate on it really doesn't belong on the article talk.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husband E. Kimmel and the "East-Wind-Rain"-Telegramm dicyphered from Japanese wireless communications 

message: How is this relevant to this article?  There are many "advanced-warning" fringe theories about Pearl Harbor, they have their own page.  Why include this one here, especially if "most historians reject Stinnett's thesis." Henry chianski (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Stinnett's advanced-warning theory 

message: ORly?  So what crippled the Bismarck early that year and sank the Italian ships at Taranto the year before?  Early versions were used in WW1.  Amateur hour.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1008:6D6:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   aerial torpedo, a secret weapon whose use could not have been predicted. 

message: The text has the statement "Kimmel then served in the United States occupation of Veracruz, Mexico, during which he was wounded in April 1914"
Rear Admiral Husband Edward Kimmel was not awarded the Purple Heart, nor are there any notations in his service record to indicate that he was wounded while on active service, which is certainly the implication of this statement.
t apears the writer has confused being injured whle on active service with being wounded, something entirely different. If RADM Kimmel was injured during his service in Mexico, and the injury is important to RADM Kimmel's life, the statement should be revised to make that clear, and to provide some detail. Otherwise, the statement m=should be deleted.
Ranya (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admiral Kimmel Wounded? 

message: Who names their son "Husband"? Nosehair2200 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a name? 

message: was he given his full rank if so why isnt MG Short given is LTG back 204.65.224.3 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  rank