Freedom's Forge

[David Wilma]

I finished Freedom's Forge by Herman in which he describes
the U.S. industrial miracle due, not to the natural wisdom
of government bureaucrats, but to industrialists who do
what they do best, build stuff. Prominent in the story are
Willow Run, Henry Kaiser, and the B-29.

My question is how were the British and Canadian indus-
trial efforts organized, top down or in the U.S. model?
The U.S. prevailed in the conflict due in no small part to
all the stuff, but ISTM that the other big allied power
didn't do so badly. What about Canada?

[Phil McGregor]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:51:32 -0500, David Wilma

Post by David Wilma
I finished Freedom's Forge by Herman in which he describes
the U.S. industrial miracle due, not to the natural wisdom
of government bureaucrats, but to industrialists who do
what they do best, build stuff. Prominent in the story are
Willow Run, Henry Kaiser, and the B-29.
My question is how were the British and Canadian indus-
trial efforts organized, top down or in the U.S. model?
The U.S. prevailed in the conflict due in no small part to
all the stuff, but ISTM that the other big allied power
didn't do so badly. What about Canada?

Yeah, interesting, but wildly partisan, quite right wing, view of
reality.

Might, indeed, be close to reality ... or not.

More the latter, I suspect.

Of course, I would discount the hagiographic efforts of *anyone*,
about *anyone*, and that's what it really is.

The reality is, I would suggest, more likely to be something closer to
"close co-operation between government and industry, with the usual
cock-ups on *both* sides" than "ayn rand is alive and well and ruling
the world".

So, the "US Model" is NOT what Herman claims, at all, I would suggest.

And, of course, note that Herman is a creature of the ... "American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research"

"The AEI is an American conservative think tank" ... whose baldly
stated *mission* is ... "to defend the principles and improve the
institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited
government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility,
vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political
accountability, and open debate"

A writer of hagiographical propaganda, in other words.

YMMV, depending on your politics (oh, and don't call me a "liberal"
... in Australia they are *conservatives* thank you very much ;-P) ...
he might be right, but it would be purely by accident, as he's got so
many axes to grind that he must be related to Kali!

Look at Miller's "All My Sons" for confirmation that the
industrialists were not always the purer than the driven snow
unvarnished heroes of the story.

Phil

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Phil McGregor
Look at Miller's "All My Sons" for confirmation that the
industrialists were not always the purer than the driven snow
unvarnished heroes of the story.

"All My Sons" is a work of fiction, and no evidence
about reality except about the mindset of a notably
left-wing author.

If one could cite fiction as evidence, I could cite
something I have just read:

_Look Your Last_, a mystery novel from 1943 by John
Stephen Strange (his 13th; he wasn't Agatha Christie,
but he wasn't unknown). The action of the story takes
place in 1941. Hess's flight to Britain is a news
story at the time.

The premise of the story is that there was a vast
conspiracy by some Big Capitalists, especially the
leaders of Big Oil ("Sir Willem Meierling, chairman of
the board of Dutch Petroleum, and virtual dictator in
the European oil industry").

This conspiracy financed Hitler and the Nazis,
bringing them to power in Germany, then sabotaged the
defenses of France and other countries, enabling the
Nazi conquests of 1939-1940. Their goal is to unite
the West for an anti-Communist crusade.

At the time of the story, the conspiracy is planning a
coup d'etat in the U.S., with arms in secret
stockpiles. Hess' flight was supposed to be the signal
for action.

Oddly, all this is mere background to the murder
mystery; one of the murder victims is connected with
the conspiracy, but is killed for other reasons.

This conspiracy background is nonsense, of course.
But if Miller's play is "confirmation" of anything
about actual conditions at the time, so is Strange's
novel.

[Phil McGregor]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:49:25 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Phil McGregor
Look at Miller's "All My Sons" for confirmation that the
industrialists were not always the purer than the driven snow
unvarnished heroes of the story.

"All My Sons" is a work of fiction, and no evidence
about reality except about the mindset of a notably
left-wing author.

It may well be, however, as anyone who knows anyything at all about
the play knows, it is based on true events.

"All My Sons is based upon a true story, which Arthur Miller's then
mother-in-law pointed out in an Ohio newspaper. The news story
described how in 1941-43 the Wright Aeronautical Corporation based in
Ohio had conspired with army inspection officers to approve defective
aircraft engines destined for military use. The story of defective
engines had reached investigators working for Sen. Harry Truman's
congressional investigative board after several Wright aircraft
assembly workers informed on the company; they would later testify
under oath before Congress. In 1944, three Army Air Force officers,
Lt. Col. Frank C. Greulich, Major Walter A. Ryan, and Major William
Bruckmann were relieved and later convicted of neglect of duty."

... Wikipedia article on "All My Sons"

"Defective parts sold to U.S. military in World War II

Post by Rich Rostrom
From 1941 to 1943, the Curtiss Aeronautical plant in Lockland, Ohio

produced aircraft engines under wartime contract destined for
installation in U.S. Army Air Force aircraft. Wright officials at
Lackland insisted on high engine production levels, resulting in a
significant percentage of engines that did not meet Army Air Force
(AAF) inspection standards. These defective engines were nevertheless
approved by inspectors for shipment and installation in U.S. military
aircraft. After investigation, it was later revealed that Wright
company officials at Lockland had conspired with civilian technical
advisers and Army inspection officers to approve substandard or
defective aircraft engines for military use. Army Air Force technical
adviser Charles W. Bond was dismissed by the Army in 1943 for "gross
irregularities in inspection procedure." Bond would later testify that
he had been "wined and dined" by Wright company officials; one of
those occasions was the night before Bond fired four AAF engine
inspectors another AAF inspector had described as "troublemakers." In
1944, three Army officers, Lt. Col. Frank Constantine Greulich of
Detroit, former chief inspection officer for the material command,
Major Walter A. Ryan of Detroit, former central states inspection
officer, and Major William Bruckmann, a former Cincinnati brewer and
resident Army inspections officer at the Wright plant in Lockland were
charged with neglect of duty, conspiracy, and giving false testimony
in a general court martial. All three men were later convicted of
neglect of duty. The story of defective engines had reached
investigators working for Sen. Harry Truman's congressional
investigative board, the Truman Commission, after several Wright
aircraft assembly workers informed on the company; they would later
testify under oath before Congress. Arthur Miller's play All My Sons
is based on this incident."

... Wikipedia article on Wright Aviation.

Like I said, there were events that show that the Herman's work is
hagiographical ... that was merely one example.

Since Herman is self-evidently a right wing apologist, balancing his
hagiographical claims with material from a left wing author who based
his play on actual events seems fair.

Especially when the actual events make it reasonably obvious that
Herman *is* writing hagiography.

YMMV

Phil

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:49:25 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
"All My Sons" is a work of fiction, and no evidence
about reality except about the mindset of a notably
left-wing author.

It may well be, however, as anyone who knows anyything at all about
the play knows, it is based on true events.

Then cite the actual event, not some work of
fiction "based on" it. Fictionalized history,
even when it is meant to be close to the reality,
will be shaped to meet the needs of entertainment.
For instance, _The Great Escape_.

Post by Phil McGregor
Since Herman is self-evidently a right wing apologist...

Ad hominem.

Post by Phil McGregor
balancing his hagiographical claims...

Straw-man argument. Neither Herman nor anyone else
ever claimed that American industrialists engaged
in war work were "all pure as the driven snow".

Herman's argument is that American industrialists
were remarkably successful in producing large
quantities of war materiel, and that this success
was achieved largely because they were free to
self-organize, rather than follow rigid dictates
from government planners. There is considerable
real-world evidence for this claim, which is not
refuted by sneering at it as "hagiographic".

Unless one is of the opinion that capitalism and
free enterprise are and always have been an
unmitigatable evil.

The Wright aviation motor scandal was a case of
quality controls deliberately evaded to achieve
production numbers. (For selfish reasons?
Apparently.)

The other great success of mass war production
was in the Soviet Union - but there, quality
assurance was _frequently_ neglected to achieve
production numbers. (For selfish reasons? Perhaps.
The need for weapons was so acute that failures
of some were accepted if it meant delivery of
more in time for battle. On the other hand,
success or failure in meeting a production quota
could be literally life or death for a Soviet
plant manager.)

[Phil McGregor]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:38:54 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:49:25 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
"All My Sons" is a work of fiction, and no evidence
about reality except about the mindset of a notably
left-wing author.

It may well be, however, as anyone who knows anyything at all about
the play knows, it is based on true events.

Then cite the actual event, not some work of
fiction "based on" it. Fictionalized history,
even when it is meant to be close to the reality,
will be shaped to meet the needs of entertainment.
For instance, _The Great Escape_.

Evidently other posters are aware of the history behind it, and took
the point.

Which stands. As made i.e. Herman is writing hagiography, and not
interested in facts, something that other reviewers without his
particular bias have, of course, indicated in their reviews.

YMMV.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Phil McGregor
Since Herman is self-evidently a right wing apologist...

Ad hominem.

Something pointed out by other reviewers, and supported by the nature
of his employer, as pointed out also.

Summed up by ...

"Though I thoroughly enjoyed reading Freedom’s Forge, there was one
discordant note. Author Arthur Herman, a free-market conservative who
wrote this book as a visiting scholar at the right-wing American
Enterprise Institute, advanced a political message throughout. That
message could be summed up as “FDR, the New Deal, labor unions — bad.
Business, businessmen, military leaders — good.” He could hardly have
been more blatant. But the man writes well, and he did a stellar job
of telling this unimaginably complex story between the covers of a
single volume."

http://malwarwickonbooks.com/2012/09/06/a-mind-boggling-tale-how-america-rearmed-to-win-world-war-ii/

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Phil McGregor
balancing his hagiographical claims...

Even the positive reviers, such as in the NYT, feel it necessary to
indicate clearly that he works for a conservative (aka right wing)
political think tank ("lobby group" is as polite as I can go ...
"hired guns grinding specific multiple axes" would be as accurate) and
is himself a "pro-business conservative" (aka moderately far right
wing) in his views.

Does this mean his views or those he has been hired to push are wrong?

As I said originally, maybe not. Or maybe.

However, he is blatantly pushing an ideological line, and so is
writing what can ultimately be called hagiography. Even hagiographers
manage to get some basic facts right, at least some of the time ...
but the interpretation of the lives and events they are reporting on
often, shall we say, leaves much to be desired in terms of
believability.

I found the story the book told generally enjoyable, when taken with a
truckload of salt and the blatant political line that was repeatedly
pushed was ignored, but found the conclusions reached ... that, as a
number of reviewers have indicated, "business = godlike heroes ...
government/unions etc = satanically evil" (exaggeration for effect, in
case you don't recognise it) ... to be laughably biased and not based
even in the slightest on an objective reading of the actual events on
the ground ...

In a sense, it's a Tea Party history of WW2.

Hagiography.

Certainly not something that even attempts to be balanced and based on
the actual facts.

Phil

[David Wilma]

Post by Phil McGregor
Certainly not something that even attempts to be balanced and based on
the actual facts.

So what Herman says is false? Industrialists were not allowed to self
organize?

[Phil McGregor]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:04:01 -0500, David Wilma

Post by David Wilma

Post by Phil McGregor
Certainly not something that even attempts to be balanced and based on
the actual facts.

So what Herman says is false? Industrialists were not allowed to self
organize?

No, as I said, the story told was interesting, and, as far as I can
tell, a lot of it gels with what I know from other, less biased and/or
non-partisan, sources ...

... the problem is that Herman's *conclusions* are not borne out by
the facts, not even, always and/or necessarily, by those in the parts
of the story he tells rather than

a) glosses over

b) ignores

c) distorts

... which, of course, he doesn't do for everything, all the time,
which is why I found the *story* interesting.

The conclusions and interpretations?

Right wing hagiography ... the Tea Party version of history, in
effect.

Now, I don't really understand modern US politics ... *all* your
Pollies are *far* right wing by standards that we have in Australia
(the clue here is that the main conservative party is called the
"Liberal Party" ... not in the distorted propagandaish far right US
meaning, but the original UK meaning) ... but, to most Australians (a
majority) and most Brits (I am extrapolating, but with some reason),
the sort of hagiography that Herman is proposing is, well, not
believable based on how we see the world working.

Which is, I daresay, not a ringing endorsement that our worldview is
necessarily right and correct and his is wrong and incorrect ... as I
allowed, right from the get go.

However, based on my readings of books by academics about the US
during the war, and the US Government and Industry and Society during
the war, I don't think, personally, his interpretation of events gels
with their facts, and these are books that are not obviously "liberal"
in the US sense of the term, either ... or not obviously to someone
who doesn't watch Fox News ;-)

Did some US Industrialiasts manage seeming industrial miracles during
the war?

Sure.

Out of the goodness of their hearts and in the national interest?

Rubbish.

Were they opposed and/or dogged at every step by the incompetence and
criminal negligence of the Unions and/or the Roosevelt administration?
(exaggeration for effect)

Piffle.

That's the sort of agenda that Herman tries to sell. And it isn't even
vaguely believable if you look at the wider situation with a less
overtly biased eye.

YMMV, as I said.

The real truth, as I also said, would be closer to "US Industry worked
heroically (for good pay and considerable profit) to produce the war
material that was needed to win the war at the behest of, in
co-operation with, and under the direction of the US government. The
US workforce, and the US unions, participated in this quite
effectively, though, of course, with the same eye on the main chance
(wages = profit) as the industrialists."

Were there dishonest, incompetent, even criminally negligent or
obstructive ... industrialists? workers? unionists? government
officials?

Yes. To all four.

But, according to Herman, the war was won only because of the simon
pure altruism and heroic competence of american industrial leadership
(exaggeration for effect, but not by all that much) ... opposed by the
satanically evil, egregiously incompetent, downright obstructive
unions and government.

Yeah. Right. Pull the other one. It plays "Jingle Bells."

YMMV, as I said.

Now, as a basis for comparing US industrial organisation with that in
Canada and the UK, as the original poster suggested, asked, Herman's
blatant bias is not a good start.

Again, YMMV.

Phil

Phil

Phil

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Phil McGregor
Were there dishonest, incompetent, even criminally negligent or
obstructive ... industrialists? workers? unionists? government
officials?

As I suggested two days ago, try reading Jim Lacey's book. It is far
less burdened by ideology and contains some real eye-openers (well, for
me at least).

Michael

[Phil McGregor]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by Phil McGregor
Were there dishonest, incompetent, even criminally negligent or
obstructive ... industrialists? workers? unionists? government
officials?

As I suggested two days ago, try reading Jim Lacey's book. It is far
less burdened by ideology and contains some real eye-openers (well, for
me at least).

Indeed, I will look it up.

Though I have read similar material elsewhere, just not as
specialised.

Phil

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Rich Rostrom
"All My Sons" is a work of fiction, and no evidence
about reality except about the mindset of a notably
left-wing author.

"All My Sons is based upon a true story, which Arthur Miller's then
mother-in-law pointed out in an Ohio newspaper. The news story described
how in 1941-43 the Wright Aeronautical Corporation based in Ohio had
conspired with army inspection officers to approve defective aircraft
engines destined for military use. The story of defective engines had
reached investigators working for Sen. Harry Truman's congressional
investigative board after several Wright aircraft assembly workers
informed on the company; they would later testify under oath before
Congress. In 1944, three Army Air Force officers, Lt. Col. Frank C.
Greulich, Major Walter A. Ryan, and Major William Bruckmann were
relieved and later convicted of neglect of duty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_My_Sons

"Negligence and falsification were unearthed in defense production. The
Curtis-Wright firm allowed faulty airplane engines to be installed. The
Army Air Corps denied there were problems, but an Air Corps general was
sent to prison because of the committee's findings. "

http://suite101.com/article/truman-committee-of-world-war-ii-a145129

See also,

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,777836,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/bskol4n
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19430713&id=1bI0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=_2kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1879,1596748

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Phil McGregor
Yeah, interesting, but wildly partisan, quite right wing, view of
reality.

You might have a go at *Keep from All Thoughtful Men: How U.S.
Economists Won World War II* by Jim Lacey. Not a perfect history of the
subject and a lot of it is frankly repetitive and boring, but he does
manage to throw in an interesting fact or two and the text seems to me
to be unladen by political bias.

Michael

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by David Wilma
My question is how were the British and Canadian indus-
trial efforts organized,

I know nothing about Canada but the UK was organised top down with
government control of production and materials supply. This actually
started pre-war when the Shadow Factory system was set up. Agriculture
was also controlled, the BBC recently broadcast a series called "The
Wartime Farm" giving an idea of what it was like.

Ken Young

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by David Wilma
I finished Freedom's Forge by Herman in which he describes
the U.S. industrial miracle due, not to the natural wisdom
of government bureaucrats, but to industrialists who do
what they do best, build stuff. Prominent in the story are
Willow Run, Henry Kaiser, and the B-29.
My question is how were the British and Canadian indus-
trial efforts organized, top down or in the U.S. model?
The U.S. prevailed in the conflict due in no small part to
all the stuff, but ISTM that the other big allied power
didn't do so badly. What about Canada?

For Canada, you might have a look as C.P. Stacey's _Arms, Men and
Governments_. If you want pictures with that, you can read Chapters 3 and
11 of Alec Douglas's and Ben Greenhous's _Out of the Shadows_.

Canada's was a mixed war economy. In 1939, Parliament passed the
Department of Munitions and Supply. The government encouraged industry
where it already existed to convert to war production--e.g. Otis-Fensom
Elevator produced 40mm Bofors AA guns--and this accounts for the majority.
However, being an ocean away from their most willing supplier and having
the supply of arms from the U.S. complicated by export controls up to the
establishment of Lend-Lease, they formed 28 Crown companies to produce
small arms and ancillaries. In at least one case, they purchased a
majority interest in a company for security reasons; as the British
"Directorate of Tube Alloys" cast about for supplies of uranium oxide, the
department bought a majority of the shares of Eldorado Gold Mines Ltd.
which processed pitchblende into radium, leaving U3O8 as an byproduct.

This arrangement worked in large part because the Minister of Munitions
and Supply was a very capable and pragmatic engineer, Clarence Decatur
Howe, known to Canadians as "the Minister of Everything."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Don Phillipson]

Post by David Wilma
My question is how were the British and Canadian indus-
trial efforts organized, top down or in the U.S. model?
The U.S. prevailed in the conflict due in no small part to
all the stuff, but ISTM that the other big allied power
didn't do so badly. What about Canada?

An official History of the Department of Munitions and Supply
by J. de N.Kennedy (2 vol. 1958) was published. The DMS
was the analogue of the British Ministry of Supply, also a temporary
wartime structure.) but its contents never entered "main stream"
history of the wartime period; nor did the only biography
of DMS Minister C.D. Howe (a historically important figure
1935-57) as by Bob Bothwell (1978.)

The Canadian war supply system relied like the American
on "dollar a year men," viz. top prewar industrialists known to
and trusted by the politicians of the war cabinet. But many
of the munitions factories were Crown creations (as in the UK)
rather than additions to prewar manufacturing companies.
This may have been facilitated because Canadian industry
had during WW2 little or no R&D competence, i.e. usually
produced British-designed weapons (e.g. Hurricanes and
Lancasters) rather than develop their own (as US industry
produced the Jeep, Bazooka, B-29 etc.)

The most notoriously undocumented war plant was Research
Enterprises Ltd. (Leaside, near Toronto), a Crown plant
founded by the National Research Council to produce
optical goods (e.g. gunsights) and radar components.
Staff folklore was notably proud of its Type 268 marine
radar, improved from a British design, delivered in time
for RN and RCN use and used for merchant marine
navigation for 10 or 20 years thereafter. But the government-
owned war plants were all closed down and sold off in 1945-46.
Some were sold intact to industries in the same field, e.g.
Victory Aircraft to Avro Canada Ltd. but REL was dismantled
and dispersed. There seemed in 1945-46 no demand for
the sorts of technology it produced, and there was no
effective demand (by politicians or engineers) to
maintain it. Another war project wound up thereafter
was the production of RDX explosive, in secret Crown
plants, supposedly much improved by university chemist
Raymond Boyer (later also convicted of spying for the
USSR), sold off after the war to big foreign proprietors
(Du Pont Canada or CIL = Canadian subsudiary of
UK ICI.)

The only new technology war plants retained in Crown
ownership were Polymer Corp (later Polysar,)
a synthetic rubber producer at Sarnia, Ont., and
Canadair Ltd., a Montreal aircraft company. (Both
were sold to private industry in the 1970s.) Revisions
to the National Research Council Act in 1946 envisaged
Crown or government ownership of commercial plants
in a few select fields judged of strategic importance and
neglected by private sector entrepreneurs, e.g. Polymer
Corp. and nuclear energy (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.,
created 1952 to design power plants and supply medical
and industrial radioisotopes.) But no historian has yet
attempted to pull together what later happened to the war
industries let alone how government policy later reversed
itself (more than once, cf. the Canada Development Corpn.)

[MANITOBIAN]

Post by Don Phillipson
An official History of the Department of Munitions and Supply
by J. de N.Kennedy (2 vol. 1958) was published. The DMS
was the analogue of the British Ministry of Supply, also a temporary
wartime structure.) but its contents never entered "main stream"
history of the wartime period; nor did the only biography
of DMS Minister C.D. Howe (a historically important figure
1935-57) as by Bob Bothwell (1978.)

C D Howe was born in USA, and was a powerful MP and Liberal
minister. I have not seen any comment on whether he became
a Canadian citizen. Seems to me that one can be a US citizen and
be an MP in Canada! Myron Thompson PC MP from Alberta!?
was/is a US citizen, unless I dreamed it!

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/canadaww2/p/cdhowe.htm
About C.D. Howe:
C.D. Howe was a cabinet minister for 22 years, first in the
government
of Mackenzie King, and then in the government of Louis St. Laurent.
Nicknamed the "Minister of Everything," C.D. Howe was forthright and
forceful, and more interested in getting things done than in policy.
He mobilized Canada for World War II, turning the Canadian economy
from one based primarily on agriculture to one based on industry,
and
after the war turned it into a consumer economy spurred by veterans.

Birth and Death:
Born 1886 in Waltham, Massachusetts, United States
Died 1960 in Montreal, Quebec
Education:
Engineering degree - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Career Highlights of C.D. Howe:
created a national air service, Trans-Canada Airlines (later Air
Canada)
created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as a Crown
corporation
created the National Harbours Board
restructured the debt-ridden Canadian National Railway (CNR)
established the St. Lawrence Seaway
established Canada's nuclear industry
initiated the Trans-Canada Pipeline
Professional Career of CD Howe:
Engineer
Taught at Dalhousie University in Halifax
Businessman - designed and built grain elevators
Political Affiliation:
Liberal Party of Canada

Riding (Electoral District):
Port Arthur (Ontario)

Political Career of CD Howe:
C.D. Howe was first elected to the House of Commons in 1935.
He was appointed Minister of Railways and Canals and also Minister of
Marine.
The two departments were soon combined into the Ministry of
Transport.
C.D. Howe oversaw the reorganization of Canadian National Railways,
and
the creation of the National Harbours Board and Trans-Canada Airlines,
the
forerunner of Air Canada.
In 1940, C.D. Howe was appointed Minister of Munitions and Supply in
charge of war production for Canada. As head of the War Supply Board,
and with the authority of the War Measures Act, C.D. Howe created a
huge
rearmament program using "dollar-a-year men," business executives
called
to Ottawa to reorganize the economy. The British Commonwealth Air
Training
Plan, which created more than 100 aerodromes and landing fields and
trained
over 130,000 airmen, was one of the results.
In 1944, C.D. Howe was appointed Minister of Reconstruction, and then
Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, and began turning the economy
toward consumer needs.
C.D. Howe became Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1948.
In 1951, with the growth of the Cold War, C.D. Howe became Minister
of
Defence Production as well as Trade and Commerce and oversaw the
growth
of the Canadian aircraft industry.
In 1956, C.D. Howe forced the plan for the Trans-Canada Pipeline, a
gas pipeline
from Alberta to central Canada, through Parliament but paid heavily
when the
Liberal government lost the next election and he lost his seat.
C.D. Howe retired from politics in 1957 at the age of 70.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by MANITOBIAN

Post by Don Phillipson
An official History of the Department of Munitions and Supply
by J. de N.Kennedy (2 vol. 1958) was published. The DMS
was the analogue of the British Ministry of Supply, also a temporary
wartime structure.) but its contents never entered "main stream"
history of the wartime period; nor did the only biography
of DMS Minister C.D. Howe (a historically important figure
1935-57) as by Bob Bothwell (1978.)

C D Howe was born in USA, and was a powerful MP and Liberal
minister. I have not seen any comment on whether he became
a Canadian citizen. Seems to me that one can be a US citizen and
be an MP in Canada!

Howe came to Canada at age 22 when offered a teaching post
in the Dalhousie Univ. engineering department (which had asked
MIT to nominate someone) Five years a Halifax friend became
head of the (new) Board of Grain Commissioners, decided to
build grain elevators at Fort William, Ont., and asked Howe
to come along as general supervising engineer. At this date
(1913) Howe applied for British citizenship. (Canadian citizenship
was not defined by law until 1947.) He founded his own engineering
firm in 1915, specializing in grain elevators, became rich, and first
ran for parliament in 1935 (elected, minister for Railways and Marine.)

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:11:04 -0500, "Don Phillipson"

Post by Don Phillipson
Howe came to Canada at age 22 when offered a teaching post
in the Dalhousie Univ. engineering department (which had asked
MIT to nominate someone) Five years a Halifax friend became
head of the (new) Board of Grain Commissioners, decided to
build grain elevators at Fort William, Ont., and asked Howe
to come along as general supervising engineer. At this date
(1913) Howe applied for British citizenship. (Canadian citizenship
was not defined by law until 1947.) He founded his own engineering
firm in 1915, specializing in grain elevators, became rich, and first
ran for parliament in 1935 (elected, minister for Railways and Marine.)

This would presumably be in the context of how he came to sign (and it
looks like a personal signature) my late grandfather's fishing
captain's papers. It's done on oilskin presumably as it's intended to
be displayed at sea. The document is about 1/3 larger than a standard
credit card of today.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by David Wilma
I finished Freedom's Forge by Herman in which he describes
the U.S. industrial miracle due, not to the natural wisdom
of government bureaucrats, but to industrialists who do
what they do best, build stuff.

Um, doesn't someone have to BUY?

Or, you know, they don't make money?

Post by David Wilma
Prominent in the story are
Willow Run, Henry Kaiser, and the B-29.

Yeah, about the B-29... private market for that ca. depression-era America would
have been, what? 3? And it was built in response to a request from the USAAC,
right? Is the USAAC an industrialist organization? Seems to be a bureaucracy...

Mike

[David H Thornley]

Post by David Wilma
I finished Freedom's Forge by Herman in which he describes
the U.S. industrial miracle due, not to the natural wisdom
of government bureaucrats, but to industrialists who do
what they do best, build stuff. Prominent in the story are
Willow Run, Henry Kaiser, and the B-29.

If you want to look at something closer to that, consider
Germany. While the government always meddled, the industrialists
were significantly freer to do what they wanted.

For example, the US War Production Board would assign
aircraft designs to be produced by different companies,
assigning values to patent licenses and the like. This
didn't happen in Germany, and therefore how many Bf 109s
could be produced was basically up to the Messerschmidt
management.

The US industrialists were obviously world leaders in
making a whole lot of stuff, and used that ability
to make the US into the arsenal it was. They weren't
anywhere close to perfect, and (for example) the
Willow Run factory was seriously affected by Ford's
desire not to run the factory across a county line.
"Natural wisdom" is not the phrase I would use.

[David Wilma]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:05:55 AM UTC-8, David H Thornley wrote:

They weren't

Post by David H Thornley
anywhere close to perfect, and (for example) the
Willow Run factory was seriously affected by Ford's
desire not to run the factory across a county line.
"Natural wisdom" is not the phrase I would use.

Herman does omit the detail of the "tax turn" at Willow Run
along with serious quality control issues because of
rapidly expanding workforces. He got some other facts
wrong too. He calls the San Joaquin Valley in California
the San Jose Valley.

He does not credit the huge public works projects of the
20s and 30s for teaching industrialists how to set up
immense operations to support thousands of workers.

[Bill Shatzer]

David H Thornley wrote:

- snip -

Post by David H Thornley
If you want to look at something closer to that, consider
Germany. While the government always meddled, the industrialists
were significantly freer to do what they wanted.
For example, the US War Production Board would assign
aircraft designs to be produced by different companies,
assigning values to patent licenses and the like. This
didn't happen in Germany, and therefore how many Bf 109s
could be produced was basically up to the Messerschmidt
management.

That's incorrect. Bf 109 production outside Messerschmidt plants almost
equaled the numbers produced by Messerschmidt itself.

In addition to the Bf 109s produced by Messerschmitt at Regensburg and
its satellite company plant at Wiener Neustadt, Bf 109s were produced by
(at least) Arado, Erla, Fiessler, and Ago.

The production of the Fw 190 was similarly dispersed - in addition to
the 190s produced by Focke-Wulf, Fw 190s were also built by Ago,
Fiessler, Arado, Mimetall Erfurt, and Dornier.

Most Luftwaffe aircraft built in any appreciable numbers were license
produced to a greater or lesser degree by companies other than those
which originally produced the design.