Yes. But they’ve gotten much better. In fact, they have a legion of “bots” that patrol the site and prevent random entries. On major topics such as WWII and the like, I’ve found them to be generally reliable with entries by actual history buffs using valid sources…
but it does claim King had something called “Anglophobia”. which Wiki defines as:
I know. I heard this in the 1990s when I saw a big PBS documentary on the U-boat war (I think, a lot of beer went down then, so…:))
But, the “new histories” have him pegged not so much as an “Anglophobe” but as a cantankerous old bastard that pretty much disliked everybody (except for beautiful women) equally…
It’s not that simple, it never is. If there is one thing I’ve learned in my recent re-immersion in WWII history, it’s that the often accepted generalizations of various characters in the conflict are often too simplistic and that people are often cast as villains by others seeking to hide their own incompetence and bad ideas. If you’re going to blame King for the losses of merchant shipping along the US coast in the first half of 1942, then you better give him credit for helping to build one of the greatest naval powers the world had ever seen in 1940-1947…
If you read the Wiki link, they cite a newer US Navy historian that goes against the grain and I agree. I actually think that the source of his supposed “Anglophobia” was his personal, and reciprocated, dislike of Churchill’s chief Military adviser and strategist (the sort of British counterpart of Gen. George C. Marshall) in Field Marshal Alan Brooke. I also think you might want to pick up both of Rick Atkins excellent, recent accounts entitled “An Army at Dawn” and “Day of Battle” in which he recounts much of the haggling that took place between the Allied commands.
But I think this in no way effected his judgement as to defending against the U-boats. He considered using convoys, but felt that there were too few escort vessels available (possibly wrongly albeit) and that the convoys would simply be a bigger target.
I think you’re simply failing to appreciate the scale and scope of the US Navy’s early wartime commitments.
which explains the reason he ignored the ‘drumbeat’ warning from the brits. which gave the time and date of the attack. positions of U boats. everything in detail.
This is patently false! They Enigma code was only partially broken, and in any case, the U-Boats captains were operating largely independently and on their own initiative…
Otherwise, they would not have been able to avoid the patrols of the US Coast Guard cutters…
he hated the English.
Yes, but apparently he also hated most Americans that weren’t wearing a dress. Especially certain members of the US Army, like Gen. Douglas MacArthur, even though he agreed in principle that the War in the Pacific needed more attention than it was getting…
the wrong man at the wrong time and wrong place in history.
Then who? If you want to eliminate all the US officers that didn’t like the Brits, or felt slighted by them, than you’re eliminating almost everyone…
I honestly think that while he wasn’t perfect, few could have done any better. he was chief of a divided naval force that was overextended.
…at the very least the merchant Navy should have been warned. wish i could find this documentary. it clearly stated escort vessals were kept in port on Kings orders.
Yes, perhaps. But let’s not forget that it’s not just Allied “incompetence,” but German skill and cunning that allowed them to have a second “happy times.” The U-boat commanders and crews were the cream of the German war machine. The elite. They gave the British hell prior to the US entry into the War, and they also sank one or two US Navy destroyers even before Pearl Harbor. Having a destroyer or cutter did not mean an automatic U-boat sinking, they were targets too, and ones that were much needed. It wasn’t until 1943 that the Allied technical superiority in anti-submarine warfare really began to show, and that there were enough ships and aircraft to overcome losses, patrol, etc…
