Good points Jim.
That brings up the question. Yes people will be upset one way or the other if King is not made CNO as well as Commander USN as per historical but we have to look at FFO and see if his appointment fits with the timeline or not regardless of what some on NFB think, imho. It sucks but as we all know many will never agree regardless of what we say. As for proof, enough of the biographies of those he served with paint him in this light for better or worse and any good articles on him say he had his defenders and his attackers. I personally think he was needed at the time and that was why he was picked. Stark was sent over to Britain because he could work with the Allies and smooth over things coming out of Kings office. In FFO the reasons to put King in two positions as per oTL though I feel is not present. So as stated, is the need to keep the Allies as one big happy family more of a requirement ( considering the position of strength the RN and MN are in compared to OTL )? Is he made CNO but not Commander USN, does he remain Commander USN only? Do we use the KISS system and leave it alone but put some breaks on his actions as the heavy handedness isn't as needed in FFO ( assume FDR is reigning him back )? or do we just let history run its course?

Russ / Roller007