We, the authors of this essay believe that in claiming there was an “affirmative misrepresentation” placed into the proceedings of these investigations, Admiral Kimmel was absolutely correct. There was and there are many “affirmative misrepresentations” placed in the historical record of the Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings. These affirmative misrepresentations were made by officers from the Navy and War Departments in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. But just as surely as this, the published record is replete with affirmative misrepresentations made by Admiral Kimmel, General Short, and other military personnel who had been on duty on Oahu or aboard ship in the eastern Pacific in 1941.
We further conclude there was no attempt, whether accidental or deliberate, to withhold critical intelligence from either Admiral Kimmel or General Short. After-the-fact testimony by Admiral Kimmel, General Short and subordinate officers serving on Oahu in 1941, claimed the Hawaiian Commanders were not furnished with intercepted, decoded and translated Japanese diplomatic message traffic.
Commander Maurice E. Curts : It’s spent, sir.
[Kimmel stares at the bullet]
Admiral Husband E. Kimmel : [somberly] Would’ve been merciful had it killed me.
In the Board of Inquiry made right after the attack, Admiral William Standley was on that board and decided that Kimmel and Short were being made scapegoats and told the President just that.