Kennedy should have faced a court martial

If I remember correctly it was about 15 years ago that a retired Admiral was interviewed & stated among other things that JFK should have been court-martialed for the loss of PT-109. His reasoning was that Kennedy had violated SOP for operating a PT boat at night. This was pretty soundly debunked by former PT boat captains who felt that Kennedy followed the same procedures they remembered following. If anything he was simply guilty of being at the wrong place at the wrong time & his conduct immediately following the collision was above reproach.
Why did this issue surface 50-some years after the war was over? I don’t know… someone wanting their 15 minutes of fame?

[deleted]

Scoundrel? Not at all. A ship's captain is responsible for whatever happens to his command as "the buck stops" with him. There's nothing ominous about a court martial. Heck, any serviceman can ask for one if he feels it's warranted. In this particular case, all four of the PT boats on patrol were "guilty" of the same "offense." They just happened not to be in the way of the Japanese destroyer. If LTjg Kennedy had been the subject of a court martial, it would have been determined that there was nothing he could have done to prevent the accident, so cased closed. He wouldn't have even lost the opportunity for another command. Compare that with what happens these days where a ship's captain is fired for the littlest of infractions.
KS

The assumptions - all unfounded - made by Kennedy's defenders here are pretty astonishing. You need to recall - and proceed from the knowledge - that Kennedy's family was MASSIVELY wealthy and influential. The Kennedy family fortune has largely disappeared, for two reasons: the large number of descendants to whom it was bequeathed, and spectacular mismanagement, usually laid to Stephen Smith, spouse of JFK's sister Jean. But the SOURCE of the fortune was JFK's father, Joe Kennedy, Sr. - and when he controlled that fortune, he was the twelfth-richest man in America, on a par with someone like Rockefeller.

When oldest son Joe Kennedy, Jr. was killed in action as a fighter pilot early in World War II, Joe Kennedy's plan to make his son the president devolved upon the next eldest son, John. Let's make one thing perfectly clear: JFK was in no way imaginable physically qualified for military service. Everyone who was alive during his presidency, and most since, have learned of his numerous and severe medical issues. His military service was a prerequisite to a successful postwar political career, so his father's influence got him into the Navy.

He was commissioned an ensign (the lowest officer's rank) on entry; this would have been typical at the time for a college graduate with international experience like Kennedy. Originally, Kennedy was assigned to a desk job with Intelligence in Washington. While serving in Intelligence, he began an affair with a Danish journalist, Inga Arvad, who had many connections to Germany, having interviewed Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and many others. She was suspected of being a spy, and surveillance of Kennedy and Arvad was initiated. Arvad was married, having left he husband behind in Europe when she traveled to the States during the war, but the affair was problematic not due to her marital status, but because of her suspected spy connections. It is entirely possible that this surveillance was primarily a product of J. Edgar Hoover's proclivity for acquiring information as potential leverage against politcians, but the suspicions of Arvad were real, if not necessarily warranted. In any event, it was MASSIVELY inappropriate for an intelligence officer to have such an affair, and it was recommended that Kennedy be quietly discharged. Hoover supplied additional information to the Navy.

Of course, this would have been extremely damaging to his political future, so his father stepped in again, and he was not discharged, but he was transferred out of intelligence to a training baase in South Carolina. To his great credit, Kennedy chose to use the opportunity to voluntarily enter training for ship command and put himself at risk on the line, something that he doubtless could easily have avoided. It is hardly surprising that his boating skills were superior; he had been yachting his entire life, something most of his fellow PT boat commanders never dreamed of. It is also hardly surprising that he was assigned as an instructor at Melville; that was his father, too, attempting to keep him out of theater. Again, to his credit, he would have none of it, and he was eventually assigned to command PT-109.

Duty in these essentially flimsy boats was quite dangerous. Their essential offensive functions was sneak attacks. Since they were slower than most of the Japanese destroyers and cruisers that were the targets, they weren't particularly effective, either. Surely there is no evidence to suggest that Kennedy was atypical as a commander in any way, prior to the collision with the Amagiri.

No one will ever know if Kennedy should be faulted for the collision with the Japanese destroyer; the circumstances are too uncertain. He wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time; the boat was on patrol in the strait on the Solomons, as was the rest of the squadron. In order to avoid detection of its wake, PT-109 was idling on a single engine, making it even more difficult to avoid collision with the faster destroyer. The only issue is whether or not Kennedy should have taken earlier evasive action - and historians seem pretty much evenly divided on that score. But if Kennedy erred, it was in no way from negligence that anyone can prove. No one had faulted his performance on patrol up to that point, or had any reason to think he was inclined to avoid battle or risk. Certainly his actions after the boat was destroyed were both heroic and aggressive; while survival needs can spur men to different effort, it seems the most ungenerous interpretation, largely unsupported by evidence, to think that either cowardice or incompetence played any part in the destruction of PT-109. Certainly Kennedy's actions in guiding the surviving crew to safety were heroic and in the best traditions of the Navy.

There's also little doubt that there were literally thousands of similar or even more spectacular instances of heroism during WWII; the apotheosis of JFK's actions were pure political propaganda. Is there a movie recounting George H.W. Bush's conspicuous heroism in World War II? JFK was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for his PT-109 actions; a mid-level NON-COMBAT medal that ranks below a Bronze Star. Was there a movie about Lyndon Johnson's Silver Star-awarded WWII service? Before WWII, Kennedy was traveling around Europe on his family's dime, while pet journalist Arthur Krock rewrote his Harvard thesis to be published under JFK's name (just as Theodore Sorenson and Jules Davids wrote Profiles in Courage for JFK, "winning" him a Pulitzer Prize) and father Joe bought enough copies to make it onto the NY Times bestseller list; Lyndon Johnson was already a Congressman (he was nine years Kennedy's senior and had won his seat at the age of 28; JFK was 30 when he was elected to Congress) and surely did not need to serve, let alone in combat. Of course, there have been hundreds of war movies, perhaps thousands, recounting acts of heroism. But did they result in toys and games and models and GI Joe dolls (complete with replica engraved coconut!) and chart-topping pop songs and tiepins, the way PT-109 did? If you cannot see that that was all bought and paid for, you are not being honest.

Given this cynicism on the part of the Kennedys, it is not hard to understand why people would look at the circumstances and have doubts about the PT-109 incident in terms of the initial responsibility for the collision and Kennedy's possible blame. I personally think that on a moonless night, on one engine, even keeping a careful watch, it may well have been impossible to avoid the collision, especially if, as some have claimed, the Amagiri deliberately aimed for PT-109. But given all the bought-and-paid-for hoo-hah surrounding this incident, it certainly is relevant to note that Kennedy did not receive a combat medal or a Silver Star, nor even a Rescue Medal; clearly, the military chain of command had substantial doubts about the collision, although Kennedy was assigned to command another PT boat after his recovery. NO ONE should have any doubts about JFK's bravery in general, nor his heroism after the collision.

But I clearly remember seeing PT-109, and I clearly remember Cliff Robertson as JFK, with the strap of a backpack between his teeth, towing a veritable charm bracelet of surviving sailors behind him, when in fact he did that very thing, but he towed only ONE sailor, a badly-burned survivor. Did he exacerbate the lifelong back problems in leading the rescue swim, or in his subsequent 4-5 mile swim to other nearby islands in search of food and water and a safer hiding place? That also seems certain to me. But it's also quite certain that JFK's achievements were either exaggerated, or if not so much exaggerated, certainly celebrated to an insanely greater extent than other cases of heroic actions in WWII.

Also consider: JFK personally selected Robertson to play him in the movie, and Joe Kennedy, Sr., former movie mogul, had an iron grip on the production from the start. PT-109 was filmed in 1962 and released in 1963, just as Kennedy's reelection campaign (that resulted in the fatal trip to Dallas) was getting under way; how do you think such blatant propagandizing in the middle of a presidential campaign would go over today? It's one thing to show Bedtime for Bonzo nearly nonstop before Reagan's elections; the man DID make the movie, after all. This is different. While it's hardly criminal, it's in questionable taste and fairness.

Suppose someone had made a movie of Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father that was released during the 2008 campaign as a major release in wide distribution, not a short shown during the convention like Clinton's A Man From Hope? Wouldn't it be fair to ask, where's the movie about the heroic ordeal of John McCain? Barry Goldwater, LBJ's opponent in 1964, was the heir of a wealthy department store family; by the beginning of WWII, he was 32, had three young children, and was thus unlikely to be assigned to a combat role; nonetheless, he flew nonstop supply missions during WWII, including the dangerous "over the hump" route to supply the Republic of China, and retired from the Air Force with the VERY real rank of major general. We already know about LBJ, where was his movie?

There may not have been anything more to the truth of PT-109 - but that it HARDLY the whole story, and the whole story gives rise to reasonable doubts. I may not have those doubts any more than rac701, but unlike him, I don't see them as unreasonable or only the result of bias.

Then without radar neither could have seen the other.

The 109 was in its location under orders. There was no moon that night. The boat had no radar. From the sighting of Amagiri, until the collision, only ten-seconds passed. What exactly could anyone have done?

It should be noted, there were two other PT boats in the area- the 162 and 169. PT 169 fired two torpedoes at Amagiri, but missed, while the 162's torpedoes failed to launch. Both boats returned to base, without looking for survivors.

Strings were pulled to get JFK into the Navy. He had suffered with chronic health problems since he was a child, and flunked the naval induction health exam. Arrangements were made for him to have a second examination- one he could "pass." So maybe he shouldn't have been there at all? If he made a mistake, it was to leave his men behind, while he went to find coastwatcher Evans. While things worked out okay, it might have been better for Kennedy to send Barney with the natives, while he stayed with his men?