Did Adm. Halsey want a court martial over PT-109?
Ace Pilot
Halsey wanted to court martial JFK over the loss of PT-109. Has anyone
ever heard of such a claim before?
Does anyone know of any sources where this is actually substantiated?
Thanks.
WalterS
news:<40412078...@news.pacific.net.au>...
The after-action report by Kennedy's Commander, which you can easily
find on the web, exonerates him of any wrongdoing and states that the
loss of PT 109 was due to poor visibility, bad communications and
unexpected enemy actions. I am not aware of any report that Admiral
Halsey, the Theater Commander many levels up in the chain of command,
wanted to court-martial Lt(jg) Kennedy, but I do know he signed the
citation awarding the Navy and Marine Corps medal to Kennedy, for
"heroism in saving his crew of PT Boat 109" after it was rammed and
sunk in 1943.
Walter S
TSBench
acepi...@mypersonalemail.com (Ace Pilot) writes:
<<<<>I recently came across an unsubstantiated allegation that Admiral
>Halsey wanted to court martial JFK over the loss of PT-109. Has anyone
>ever heard of such a claim before?>>>
Yes. Court-martial charges was considered ( I not sure if by Halsey), and did
reach as high up the food chain as King (where they died.)
<<<<>Does anyone know of any sources where this is actually substantiated? >>>
The correspondence is located in the Dec'43/Jan'44 CNO/Cominch files at the
Naval Operational Archives, which, last I knew, were at the Washington Navy
Yard. I remember reading them, because I was the person who declassified them
in 1972/3 or thereabouts when I was doing my 2 weeks of yearly Naval Reserve
duty working on the WW2 Declassification Team. These are NOT the same messages
as the ones which had been declassified in the late 1950s and are how posted on
the Naval Historical Center web site.
A couple of things I remember about the correspondence....
1. The file has previously been viewed by Donovan, the fellow who wrote PT109.
Evidently, he didn't consider the information important enough to include.
2. One document was written by a Navy junior officer (and future supreme court
justice Byron 'Whizzer' White) in the Solomons. In this brief was a litany of
reasons why it was not in the best interests of the Navy to court-martial
someone for, basically, losing his ship in combat, especially one who's father
was politically connected.
Although nothing came of the court-martial, it does appear that the entire
episode really stuck in the craw of some of Kennedy's superiors. They seemingly
settled the score by disapproving his Silver Star recommendation and
substituting the unusual downgrading to the same award that was given to his
two officer subordinates for the same action, the Navy & Marine Corps medal
(for saving life, something it is theoretically possible to earn by fishing
somebody out of the base swimming pool.) Although this speaks volumes, luckily
for Kennedy's career, it only speaks to those who know how these things really
work.
Regards,
Walker
--
TSBench
<<<<>I recently came across an unsubstantiated allegation that Admiral
>Halsey wanted to court martial JFK over the loss of PT-109. Has anyone
>ever heard of such a claim before?>>>
Yes. Court-martial charges was considered ( I not sure if by Halsey),
and did
reach as high up the food chain as King (where they died.)
<<<<>Does anyone know of any sources where this is actually
substantiated? >>>
The correspondence is located in the Dec'43/Jan'44 CNO/Cominch files
Ace Pilot
> find on the web, exonerates him of any wrongdoing and states that the
> loss of PT 109 was due to poor visibility, bad communications and
> unexpected enemy actions. I am not aware of any report that Admiral
> Halsey, the Theater Commander many levels up in the chain of command,
> wanted to court-martial Lt(jg) Kennedy, but I do know he signed the
> citation awarding the Navy and Marine Corps medal to Kennedy, for
> "heroism in saving his crew of PT Boat 109" after it was rammed and
> sunk in 1943.
Thanks for the response.
I've read the after-action report (which can be found at
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-11.htm) and I don't see
anything in the report that specifically exonerates ^Ö or blames ^Ö JFK
for the collision. The report does state that the weather was
overcast, and that visibility was poor, but nothing in the report says
this was the cause of the collision. And, it could be inferred that
JFK's commander does not hold him responsible because of the lack of
any Comments and Recommendations addressing the collision. On the
other hand, the report does state that PT-162 spotted the destroyer at
around 700 yards, turned to fire torpedoes, then turned away to avoid
collision when the destroyer was within 100 yards. PT-162 saw PT-109
collide with the destroyer as PT-162 turned away. Since it states
earlier in the report that PT-162 was following PT-109 in right
echelon formation, it begs the question of how it was able to see the
destroyer, from farther away than PT-109, and avoid a collision, yet
PT-109 couldn't.
Part of the explanation may rest within the part of the report written
by B.R. White, the intel officer. His part of the report states that
the destroyer was traveling at 40 knots, was spotted by PT-109 at 200
to 300 yards, and that PT-109 had only about 10 seconds to react after
spotting the destroyer. It would seem that PT-169 had much more than
10 seconds of reaction time, so I have to wonder why such a big
difference between the two PT boats.
I was not aware that Admiral Halsey signed the citation for JFK's
decoration. That certainly is the most compelling evidence that
Admiral Halsey did not think JFK was responsible for the collision
occurring. Do you have a source or reference you could point me to for
this?
Ace
--
Hal Hanig
"Ace Pilot" <acepi...@mypersonalemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:40412078...@news.pacific.net.au...
I drew a blank on Google on this one. According to most reports, PT
boats
were the Navy's most vulnerable WWII combat vessel, and heavy losses
were
anticipated due to its plywood construction and relative lack of
armor. The
possibility that Admiral Halsey might have sought a possible
courts-martial
against the commander of the PT-109 seems unlikely since he would not
have
involved himself in events involving the loss of one of the relatively
minor
naval combat vessels that occurred in the midst of a major naval
engagement. He
would most likely have relied upon the recommendations, if any, of Lt.
John F.
Kennedy's commanding officer. Since that officer approved the
submission of a
post-action recommendation for an award for Kennedy's behavior during
that
action, it's clearly unlikely that he would have done so if he
suspected that
some sort of dereliction of duty had occurred.
Hal
TSBench
<<<<>I recently came across an unsubstantiated allegation that Admiral
>Halsey wanted to court martial JFK over the loss of PT-109. Has anyone
>ever heard of such a claim before?>>>
Yes. Court-martial charges was considered ( I not sure if by Halsey),
and did
reach as high up the food chain as King (where they died.)
<<<<>Does anyone know of any sources where this is actually
substantiated? >>>
The correspondence is located in the Dec'43/Jan'44 CNO/Cominch files
at the
Naval Operational Archives, which, last I knew, were at the Washington
Navy
Yard. I remember reading them, because I was the person who
declassified them
in 1972/3 or thereabouts when I was doing my yearly Naval Reserve duty
R Dellsy
> Halsey wanted to court martial JFK over the loss of PT-109. Has anyone
> ever heard of such a claim before?
sort of thing that was basically done pro forma. You lost a ship. You
were in command. Therefore you will be court-marshalled in order to
exonerate you from anyone saying you were responsible. Think about
Kimmel who, after Pearl Harbor, pressed for, not a Court of Inquiry,
but a Court Marshall in the expectation that the Court Marshall would
say "You did your best. You were suprised. Life sucks. It's not your
fault. Go about your duties with a clear mind."
WalterS
> decoration. That certainly is the most compelling evidence that
> Admiral Halsey did not think JFK was responsible for the collision
> occurring. Do you have a source or reference you could point me to for
> this?
http://www.wardocuments.com/Halsey.html states that the Admiral
signed the citation for Kennedy.
Walter S
--
Ace Pilot
Thanks ^Ö that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. It
doesn't appear that the archives are available online, so I'll just
have to stop by the next time I'm in Washington. I've never been to
the Naval Archives ^Ö any advice beyond what they post on their web
page?
I also noticed that White, in addition to writing part of the after
action report, advised against a court martial for JFK. I don't doubt
that the rational was sound, but I have to wonder how objective his
assessment was, considering that JFK and White knew each other before
the war and obviously had a good relationship (JFK appointed white to
the US Supreme Court).
tsb...@aol.com (TSBench) wrote in message news:<c1dd4i$gpm$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <40412078...@news.pacific.net.au>,
> acepi...@mypersonalemail.com (Ace Pilot) writes:
>
> <<<<>I recently came across an unsubstantiated allegation that Admiral
> >Halsey wanted to court martial JFK over the loss of PT-109. Has anyone
> >ever heard of such a claim before?>>>
>
> Yes. Court-martial charges was considered ( I not sure if by Halsey), and did
> reach as high up the food chain as King (where they died.)
>
> <<<<>Does anyone know of any sources where this is actually substantiated? >>>
>
> The correspondence is located in the Dec'43/Jan'44 CNO/Cominch files at the
> Naval Operational Archives, which, last I knew, were at the Washington Navy
> Yard. I remember reading them, because I was the person who declassified them
> in 1972/3 or thereabouts when I was doing my 2 weeks of yearly Naval Reserve
> duty working on the WW2 Declassification Team. These are NOT the same messages
> as the ones which had been declassified in the late 1950s and are how posted on
> the Naval Historical Center web site.
--
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Although nothing came of the court-martial, it does appear that the entire
> episode really stuck in the craw of some of Kennedy's superiors.
Wasn't the Captain of the USS Indianapolis, the only U.S. Navy
commander
to actually be court-martialed for the loss of his vessel?