WPB left excellent records and a "summary" (1,000+ pages) study* that is essentially a primary source as it was written by the agency itself (by its successors technically but largely the same personnel).Tom from Cornwall wrote:It's worth noting that as soon as the War Department identified a need for more production capacity for artillery ammunition, the "War Production Board immediately" set about making it available. Obviously that record of events may be hiding bitter debate and challenge, but I don't have a deep understanding of how the US War Production Board was organised or whether it left adequate records.
*Industrial Mobilization for War: History of the War Production Board and its Predecessor Agencies
WPB did not, however, have much say* in grand strategic questions such as what to build and when. It was solely tasked with making production happen, once the War and Navy departments told it what was needed.
*Significant caveat is the Feasibility Dispute of 1942, wherein WPB economists fought a brutal war against military dunderheads like General Brehon Somervel regarding whether FDR's stated production goals were feasible or needed to be drastically shrunken.
Hold on there, Tom. Proof of one dispute is not absence of proof of another dispute. Describing proximate cause does not negate finding a deeper cause.Tom from Cornwall wrote:Production shortages in the US, although apparently caused by decisions made within the War Department rather than in allocating priorities across the different forces (air, land and sea):
To be more specific, the "decisions made within the War Department" occurred in a broader grand strategic concept which, from no later than 1938, prioritized aircraft over everything else within the War Department. The resolution of the Feasibility Dispute - slashing the army to maintain aircraft production - shows particularly this grand strategic orientation. I have already provided cites on these matters upthread.
Given the tone in this thread, I'll not feel any compunction in telling you that you are out of your depth in discussing these matters and need to read up on the structure and history of US decision making in WW2. Unlike with others, I trust we could have a productive discussion, however.
Silly.OpanaPointer wrote:I was hoping you'd up your game by reading more than one book. You're fighting over your weight here.
Again you demonstrate why I won't put any effort into discussing this with you. Let me know when you are ready to discuss without bad faith misrepresentations of my position.Richard Anderson wrote:only build landing ships and craft
As usual, I won't hold my breath but, given that you've occasionally demonstrated an ability to drop the immature fooling around, I'll leave the door open.