RickB,
There were some real differences between Kimmel and McArthur. Kimmel felt safe at Pearl and had little in the way of defenses. McArthur felt the pressure and screamed for reinforcements long before the Japanese invaded. Nothing that happened in the Philippines could be made the fault of McArthur if he wasn�t properly equipped, which he wasn�t.
That�s certainly a valid viewpoint...but it still seems a bit strange that a Commander who deserts the battle field and has his entire command killed and/or captured is rewarded by being presented our nations highest honor. Yes, I understand that he was ordered to leave, but so was Col. Moore at the battle of Ia Drang in 1965 but he stayed with his troops anyway. McCarthur was notorious for disobeying or ignoring orders during his entire career, but he sure had no problem obeying the one that got his ass out of the Philippines.
It has also been observed by historians and military experts that McCarthur�s forces actually out numbered the first invading Japanese troops by quite a bit but never tried to capitalize on that by attacking them.
Kimmel also had asked for more equipment in the way of planes and ships but was also denied because of Roosevelt�s obsession with Germany and the war in Europe. If you study the history of our lead up and entry into WWII it is very clear that the vast amount of concern and resources were directed to the war with Germany, not the War in the Pacific with Japan.
My only point was how people sometimes view actions in wars a bit differently with very little regard to what actually took place.
The topic of the thread was the �operational courage� of the Japanese in certain Naval battles. Personally, I don�t believe their actions had anything to do with a lack of courage. Bad planning, arrogant and overreaching perhaps...but certainly not cowardice.
