The Ship Model Forum

[quote="bengtsson"]

Probably a big problem in the Soviet navy was Party connections being more important than operational abilities. The Comrades with expertise in Marxisn/Leninism might not have made the best Nuclear submarine drivers :smallsmile:

Bob B.[/quote]

One suspects meritocracy and professionalism in the Soviet Navy, such as they were, had been much more prevalent than they are in the current Russian navy; while nepotism and cronyism is much more rampant in the modern Russian navy than it had been in the Soviet Navy.

Actually, in the Soviet Navy the political hacks and the operational officers follow two very separate and distinct career paths, and Commissars, at least after 1942, did not interfere in training and operation matters. The political officers are mainly there to keep the conscripts in line. For an actual professional officer, being a bad Marxist/Leninist is just a stick they whack you with if you are truly incompetent. But if you are competent, they have other ways to keep you dedicated to the service and the country than Marxist/Leninist platitude. That method is the vast amount of perks which the Soviet Union granted its professional officer class. A Soviet Captain 1st rank makes [i]50[/i] times as much as the average Soviet worker, and a Soviet rear admiral makes twice that. That's like an American captain making 2 million a year. By contrast An American full Admiral only makes about 6 times as much as the average American worker.

It is somewhat Ironic that Soviet military force had a reward structure otherwise only seen in corporate America, while American military force has a reward structure that is closer to those found in the Soviet civilian world.

Never underestimate the power of the Bosses to protect themselves when things go bad. This is especially true in the military. Every officer knows that should things go bad, they can be made a scapegoat by those above them. There is also an unwritten rule that when a scapegoat is named, no officer will come to his defence. To have a career, an officer knows that you go along with the witch hunt once it is recognized who the scapegoat is to be. Simple fact of military life. Once a real war breaks out, the whole system gets shaken up until competent leaders rise to the top, but usually only after alot of peace time fools get alot of soldiers and sailors killed. This isn't always the case, political connections can keep some fools in place.

Probably a big problem in the Soviet navy was Party connections being more important than operational abilities. The Comrades with expertise in Marxisn/Leninism might not have made the best Nuclear submarine drivers :smallsmile:

Bob B.

Well, Chuck, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I don't think Kimmel was operating any differently than any other base commander. His base just happened to be the one attacked.

The true incompetents, who denied Kimmel the intelligence information he crtically needed, knew they could be held responsible for the results of the attack. In classic CYA fashion, they decided to pick apart every decision and practice Kimmel made in an effort to deflect criticism from themselves. Kimmel was sacrificed to protect the incompetence of his bosses.

[quote="Lesforan"]Bob,

I agree with you 100%. My comment about Kimmel's mistake was a sarcastic reference to Chuck's incredible statement blaming Kimmel for being derilect.
.[/quote]

I find it incredible that an Admiral can be held blameless for tying the movement of his fleet to a predictable weekly schedule when a war is going on in the world and there is serious concern about hostility in his very own theater. Tying fleet to predictable schedule is an incredible oversight. As it turns out this predictability directly encouraged Japanese attack. The sacked Kimmel richly deserved his sacking, even if unsacked McAurthur may have deserved sacking much more still.

To put it in perspective, even if the Japanese had overlooked this predicability imposed by Kimmel, or even if the Japanese never attacked at all, the potential for harm in Kimmel's amazing decision would still be there, and "No harm, no foul" is not the way to run a military force, and Kimmel still would have deserved the sack for it.

Bob,

I agree with you 100%. My comment about Kimmel's mistake was a sarcastic reference to Chuck's incredible statement blaming Kimmel for being derilect.

Kimmel did everything a reasonable commander should have, in my opinion. He was made a scapegoat for the incompetency of those above him who denied him critical intelligence info.

As for MacArthur, I agee with you there, also.

[quote="Lesforan"]The attack should have been aborted. The prime Japanese objective, the carriers, were all out to sea. No doubt another bad decision by Kimmel.[/quote]

I tend to agree. But then I am using a bit too much hindsight when I do that :smallsmile: . The Japanese are credited with a victory for the damage they caused to the USN Battle Fleet. But Japanese planners were in fact after the USN Carriers. I wonder though if that was the outlook of the men carrying out Pearl Harbour? They are quoted as wanting to get the USN Carriers, but were quite happy to slam the BB force instead when no Carriers were present. Then instead of doing searches for USN Carriers nearby, they got out of there for fear of USN Carriers nearby. They had 6 fleet Carriers to hand, far above any USN force they likely would have found anywhere around Pearl. My hindsight says, hit the BB force so it is stuck in harbour and then devote 48 hours to a complete sweep of the area for any lingering USN Carriers.

Kimmel was a peace time admiral. He acted like a peace time admiral. I think he got a raw deal. He above all people should have been the NUMBER ONE destination for ALL intelligence from all sources.
MacArthur was the one I meant who should have gotten the sack instead of all those medals. A proper fool! :heh:

Bob B.

The attack should have been aborted. The prime Japanese objective, the carriers, were all out to sea. No doubt another bad decision by Kimmel.

[quote="Lesforan"]Biggest case of Naval scapegoating in WWII? Had to be Admiral Kimmel, for his alleged failure to secure Hawaii against Japanese attack. After he had been purposely denied intelligence reports that would have alerted him.

Biggest miscarraige of military justice? I don't know which naval figure got the most medals when he should have been canned, but, in Army personalities, General MacArthur stands out. Pre-warned of the Japanese attack for hours, he failed to do anything effective to protect the Phillippeans. In other words, he had actually done what Kimmel was accused of. Kimmel was sacked, MacArthur was rewarded.[/quote]


Kimmel's hands are not clean. Had he not foolishly fixed the fleet's weekly activity to a predictable routine, just to save some cost for hiring tugs, the Japanese planning would have been made much more difficult, Japanese attack much more likely to fail even so, and the attack may in fact have been aborted all together.

Biggest case of Naval scapegoating in WWII? Had to be Admiral Kimmel, for his alleged failure to secure Hawaii against Japanese attack. After he had been purposely denied intelligence reports that would have alerted him.

Biggest miscarraige of military justice? I don't know which naval figure got the most medals when he should have been canned, but, in Army personalities, General MacArthur stands out. Pre-warned of the Japanese attack for hours, he failed to do anything effective to protect the Phillippeans. In other words, he had actually done what Kimmel was accused of. Kimmel was sacked, MacArthur was rewarded.

Who was the biggest scapegoat in US Naval operations during World War II and why? I can think of a few. But then who deserved to be sacked or worse, but got off with a chest full of medals??

Bob B.

They wouldn't blame W. when Dick Cheney has a record of Scapegoating.

That Bush is to blame goes without saying. :big_grin:

I'm very surprised it wasn't blamed on George W. Bush :heh:

If he did it, then he is not a scapegoat. :wave_1:

There is evidence that you are not a serial killer. You are too wimpy to kill a cockroach. :big_grin:

That's the whole idea of scapegoating. The scapegoat can't prove he didn't do it, so he did. Ever been in the military Chuck? I seen many a scapegoat, mostly for small petty things, but to cover his butt a senior enlisted man or officer will easily pick out a scapegoat. I knew a chief who made a career out of pinning faults on others, even falsification of logs and reports. There isn't any evidence either that I am not a serial killer :smallsmile:

Bob B.

There is no proof, or even evidence, that this is scapegoating.

Scapegoat. It's a long Russian tradition. Though we do it often enough in our own military too.

Bob B.

Prankster, or scapegoat?

[quote]
[size=150][b]Russian Charged In Sub Deaths[/b][/size]
Washington Post
November 25, 2008
Pg. 10

Authorities charged a sailor with fatal negligence in the deaths of 20 people aboard a nuclear submarine Nov. 9. Dmitry Grobov is accused of setting off a fire-extinguishing system aboard the submarine during a test run in the Sea of Japan.

[/quote]