Air war question

jonnymacbrown · 08-15-2006, 04:05 PM,

Mike Abberton · 08-16-2006, 12:30 AM,

Occam's Razor implies that given equal possibilities, the simpler explanantion with less assumptions is usually the correct one.

So von Egan, you're saying the simpler, more obvious reason for strategic bombing was a behind the scenes method of prolonging the war so that American corporations could rake in extra cash. And I am assuming that the British must have been in cahoots to add to US corporations bottom line (or perhaps naive enough to believe that the US was "trying to help") since they had their own strategic bomber campaign. Was the rest of the US/UK Army, Navy, etc. in on it, too, or just the USAAF? Or am I summing up your theory inaccurately?

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that airpower in general, and strategic bombing in particular, was such a new idea that the technology and the doctrine just hadn't caught up to the concept, yet?

Mike

McIvan · 08-16-2006, 07:07 AM,

I expect the answer is that munitions factories were too widespread in number and inter-changeability to be an effective target as compared to, say, ball-bearings or oil refineries.

I'm quite sure a major aim of the strategic bombing campaign was to terrorise and kill civilians, and people like Bomber Harris and Churchill didn't mince words, but that doesn't lead to the rest of your conclusions. I suppose it's possible that some factory owners may have exerted political influence not to have their class of possessions bombed, but I'd like to see a shred of evidence before even considering that as a theory. I don't accept for one second that the war was deliberately prolonged in order to increase profit.

It is disgraceful tho, that US (and other Allied nationality?) corporations were able to derive any profit from German slave labor industries (prior to the US entering the war or even during?). I think most of them should have been able to see the writing on the wall and divest, if they had any morals, but it seems to me that most large businesses are completely ammoral and wouldn't care. From their point of view....you own a slice of a Nazi germany company when your countries decide to declare war on each other. What are you supposed to do with it? It's not like it's giving you a dividend for the duration (so far as I know), and how exactly do you arrange the sale of your share when your respective countries are at war? If you disclaim, you're just handing your investment to Nazi Germany, which they would never do. When the war ends, it is asking too much of your average sociopathic multi-national business leader to disclaim ownership.

Still doesn't mean they were able to prolong the war or get their industries off the target list. Evidence please.

Herr Schacht · 08-16-2006, 10:10 PM,

Thought this is not directly related to this thread, as businesses have grown and become more international, it becomes more impossible to isolate themselves completely from the policies of the countries they operate in.

Though this is less relevant today as thankfully there are no looming global confrontations, this thread reminds me of a circumstance that arose following WWI.

In William Manchester's great book, "The Arms of Krupp", he cites an instance where Krupp successfully sued an English arms company following WWI (the company name escapes me) for royalties related to a pre-war agreement to share technology on an exploding shell. Krupp won a settlement and recieved payment. Now that's irony.

Anyone seeking knowledge on wartime business in general, and the military industrial complex in particular, should read this book.

H.v.F. · 08-17-2006, 07:33 AM,

Thank'you Sirs, a discussion well developed, with new factors coming out to be considered ! As for me, I still have doubts about the connection between economic interests and methods to destroy the german war economy - just think of how international property was the Ploesti petrol site - but however it would be interesting to discover if german explosives industries were just so well concealed and difficult to destroy, and/or if they were shared properties of US or british (or french) holdings..

jonnymacbrown · (This post was last modified: 08-17-2006, 12:00 PM by Steel God.)

McIvan · 08-17-2006, 11:21 AM,

Interesting....you would have thought the natural response would have been a counterclaim for all the damage inflicted by ITT's Fw190's on US government property!

Herr Schacht · 08-17-2006, 11:30 AM,

The language you stressed I believe to be true. The potential for action against Iran is not a global confrontation as much as the US wants it to be one. Without straying into current events, the fact is that "mass on mass" military engagements are a thing of the past.

The factors that are key to winning military conflicts today are, IMO, (1) information and intel (and the technology that goes with these), (2) public relations, (3) a strong Gross Domestic Product, and (4) well defined goals to keep the PR campaign focused.