I read this book and find that it a firms my views of how unions can be detrimental in times of war. Some of the things they did,in retrospect, seem almost treasonous. We were fighting for our survival and they really were a subversive element at times. My other thoughts on this go beyond the scope of this response. Needless to say, unions are quite a double edged sword in modern times.
Unions are good at working for exiting members, although if they raise wages too high they can harm the company and jobs. Compare the GM story to Caterpillar. They are not so good at employment overall. The high wages secured by the Autoworkers drove many of those jobs overseas in the 1970s.
A vitally important book and excellent lecture. I was working on this subject and using Google. The modern computer age has facilitated research. We now all heavily use Google as a research tool. We have found, however, that Google algorithms are heavily oriented to show America in as bad a way as possible. We first noticed that when reseraching war crimes. Links to supposed American war crimes were incredibly given more precedence than German and Japanese war crimes. Now when researching "American World War II 'industrialists'", eight of the top 10 links were about American business aiding the NAZIs (March 20, 2021). This is incredible given the central role American industry played in smashing the Axis. This sort if thing does not happen by accident. Google programmers are intentionally manipulating the algorithms to attempt to show that American businessmen during World War II were unpatriotic and actually aiding the Axis powers when nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone using Google should have this in mind.
Good points. It's a shame that the modern emphasis is too often placed on America's faults when such astounding feats were performed in defense of freedom.
I love the facts that show just how much US industry produced in WW2. One brought forward here…The Ford Motor Company alone out produced the country of Italy!
There is never one right answer when it comes to WW2. The more digging into it you do the more complicated it becomes. With respect to inferior products. The number of horrible prototype of all things (Tanks, Guns, Planes and others) was just crazy. As for the Sherman... it is the best all around tank of WW2. There was never anything that was near as good in terms of all around performance under all possible conditions.
@@janskovjensen Absolutely it was. But the Soviets developed BEFORE the NAZIs invaded when they had time to work on it. The Sherman was developed on a rush basis to get something in the productioin lines.
@@janskovjensen The T-34/85 might have been better. Certainly, the Sherman was more reliable. The Sherman also had a three-man turret from the beginning. Otherwise, what could the T-34 do that the Sherman couldn't do as well or better?
The person insisting the P-51 was started after the war started didn't recognize that the statement was "the Hellcat was the only major aircraft started after the US entered the war." The P-51 was started after September 1, 1939 but before December 7, 1941. The person who rudely tried to call Herman's bluff saying that Communist Russia had high productivity because of centralized planning, didn't mention that the NKVD was literally holding guns to the heads of many of the key managers and top leaders in key factories and even on production lines at certain times during the war. There exists letters from Stalin to various heads of industry that he would have them killed if things didn't improve in VERY short order. Also, how many workers starved to death in the factories. Herman listed the death in US factories. The Russians have many times more, and conditions were horrible throughout the war. Needless to say the Soviet quality was crap quite often, but there was also the confirmed concept earlier in the war that since most tanks didn't last long in battle, they didn't have to be built to high standards. Yes, Soviet planned management favorably compares to American capitalism going to war -- in the imagination of Socialist Revisionism History.
Not all tanks were designed by the Army. I believe that one of the most successful US armored fighting vehicles of WWII (defined by kill/loss ratio) was the M18 Wolverine tank destroyer designed by Harley Earl of Buick. It included such innovations as a torsion bar suspension (unique among US tanks/tank destroyers at the time) and an easy to service "power pack" where the engine and transmission rolled out as a unit for easy servicing.
@@dennisweidner288 , you can edit your comment, once posted, by clicking on the 3 vertical dots to the right of the comment. The 3 dots will appear when you hover your cursor over your comment.
The engine design was British prewar. The airframe was designed by an American of German descent who knew he could do better than the P-40s specified by Britain' MoD. He was right.
@@stearman456 "never served in the north African campaign." True but the A-36 a derivative of the P-51 served in North Africa. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36_Apache
I think he may be over-glorifying the US efforts. Welding tanks wasn't an American invention, the only question was whether US welding was good enough. Also the idea that only letting capitalism rip can produce sufficient military equipment is belied by the massive Soviet output under extremely difficult conditions.
You mean the Soviet output (which wasn't all that impressive in the first place) that could never have happened without American steel, copper, aluminum and rubber? The Soviet output that only happened because because they didn't have to produce much food or other domestic goods because the US was supplying enough of it to allow the Soviets to focus only on war production? The state run economy is a failed idea. Get over it.
@@JM-ji9kx You're doing the Russian state a severe disservice and over-hyping the undoubtedly large material provision from US/UK. Personally I think 80k tanks is quite an achievement, as was the massive production of guns, ammunition and planes. The state may have been horrific, but the results are unquestionable.
He is saying in the US Capitalist system you needed to follow the bottom up model vs top down. WW1 production was top down and by the time any real quantity of our products were ready the war was virtually over. That was a centralized model dictated from top down and it failed vs what we achieved in WW2. If we were a totalitarian system like the Soviets yes you do top down because that's how their economy and system worked. In the US bottom up and allowing a profit to be made drove the private industry to innovate and produce at quantities virtually believed to be impossible.
This guy is hopeless. His description of the combat evolution of the F4U is a laugher. The Corsair had a "radial" engine, not "rotary." Also, the engine was a PW R2800, not a "2300." It gets worse. He clearly doesn't understand why the Corsair wasn't immediately adopted for use on carriers nor does he understand how the British developed procedures that made it a viable carrier borne fighter. He clearly doesn't understand U.S. tank development and strategy. His book is also riddled with errors. Good grief.
The greatest entrepreneur of all time
Lecture starts at 6:15.
I read this book and find that it a firms my views of how unions can be detrimental in times of war. Some of the things they did,in retrospect, seem almost treasonous. We were fighting for our survival and they really were a subversive element at times.
My other thoughts on this go beyond the scope of this response. Needless to say, unions are quite a double edged sword in modern times.
Good comment. Unions are a major factor in stopping national standards for police practices.
Unions are good at working for exiting members, although if they raise wages too high they can harm the company and jobs. Compare the GM story to Caterpillar. They are not so good at employment overall. The high wages secured by the Autoworkers drove many of those jobs overseas in the 1970s.
@@MarkCensky Sounds more like the teachers unions.
A vitally important book and excellent lecture. I was working on this subject and using Google. The modern computer age has facilitated research. We now all heavily use Google as a research tool. We have found, however, that Google algorithms are heavily oriented to show America in as bad a way as possible. We first noticed that when reseraching war crimes. Links to supposed American war crimes were incredibly given more precedence than German and Japanese war crimes. Now when researching "American World War II 'industrialists'", eight of the top 10 links were about American business aiding the NAZIs (March 20, 2021). This is incredible given the central role American industry played in smashing the Axis. This sort if thing does not happen by accident. Google programmers are intentionally manipulating the algorithms to attempt to show that American businessmen during World War II were unpatriotic and actually aiding the Axis powers when nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone using Google should have this in mind.
Good points. It's a shame that the modern emphasis is too often placed on America's faults when such astounding feats were performed in defense of freedom.
Great lecture & wonderful book!
I love the facts that show just how much US industry produced in WW2. One brought forward here…The Ford Motor Company alone out produced the country of Italy!
Fantastic presentation!
At first I thought I was watching "Half in the Bag."
That’s right @moodswingy1973
There is never one right answer when it comes to WW2. The more digging into it you do the more complicated it becomes.
With respect to inferior products. The number of horrible prototype of all things (Tanks, Guns, Planes and others) was just crazy. As for the Sherman... it is the best all around tank of WW2. There was never anything that was near as good in terms of all around performance under all possible conditions.
Dont you think that the T34 from the russian was a better tank?
@@janskovjensen Absolutely it was. But the Soviets developed BEFORE the NAZIs invaded when they had time to work on it. The Sherman was developed on a rush basis to get something in the productioin lines.
@@janskovjensen The T-34/85 might have been better. Certainly, the Sherman was more reliable. The Sherman also had a three-man turret from the beginning. Otherwise, what could the T-34 do that the Sherman couldn't do as well or better?
@@MichaelJDargan The T34 85 have better protection in armor, was lower in profile and it also have wider belts,
The person insisting the P-51 was started after the war started didn't recognize that the statement was "the Hellcat was the only major aircraft started after the US entered the war." The P-51 was started after September 1, 1939 but before December 7, 1941.
The person who rudely tried to call Herman's bluff saying that Communist Russia had high productivity because of centralized planning, didn't mention that the NKVD was literally holding guns to the heads of many of the key managers and top leaders in key factories and even on production lines at certain times during the war.
There exists letters from Stalin to various heads of industry that he would have them killed if things didn't improve in VERY short order. Also, how many workers starved to death in the factories. Herman listed the death in US factories. The Russians have many times more, and conditions were horrible throughout the war.
Needless to say the Soviet quality was crap quite often, but there was also the confirmed concept earlier in the war that since most tanks didn't last long in battle, they didn't have to be built to high standards.
Yes, Soviet planned management favorably compares to American capitalism going to war -- in the imagination of Socialist Revisionism History.
Very good points. That "gentleman" was not only wrong, but ignorant & rude into the bargain.
Yes on all points. Herman's arguments are well documented. The P-51 first flew in October, 1940 which predates America's entry in WWII. @@WNH3
NEPA would make that impossible today
Really good book!
Not all tanks were designed by the Army. I believe that one of the most successful US armored fighting vehicles of WWII (defined by kill/loss ratio) was the M18 Wolverine tank destroyer designed by Harley Earl of Buick. It included such innovations as a torsion bar suspension (unique among US tanks/tank destroyers at the time) and an easy to service "power pack" where the engine and transmission rolled out as a unit for easy servicing.
@ Paul Walliker Interesting. Thanks. By the way, how did you edit your comment?
I never heard it called a "Wolferine" before--it's usually listed as a "Hellcat"
@@dennisweidner288 , you can edit your comment, once posted, by clicking on the 3 vertical dots to the right of the comment. The 3 dots will appear when you hover your cursor over your comment.
@@WelshRabbit Thanks, I finally figured that out.
Who’s the dope who argues with the speaker at the 1:10:00? The design for the P-51 Mustang was pre-war.
The engine design was British prewar. The airframe was designed by an American of German descent who knew he could do better than the P-40s specified by Britain' MoD. He was right.
The Mustang was indeed a pre-war design. The P-51 prototype flew on 26 October 1940, and never served in the north African campaign.
@@stearman456 "never served in the north African campaign." True but the A-36 a derivative of the P-51 served in North Africa.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36_Apache
@@redman1249 That's true - only in the very late stages of the battle, and really only for less than two weeks, but you are correct.
The P-51 design was prior to U.S. involvement, but definitely after the beginning of WW2
This is great! Thank you :)
This lecture was just featured on the @thewaryears WWII Twitter feed.
I believe it was Prof. Donald Miller of Lafayette College who says he disagrees with the book's entire argument.
DJCamYank Yes...it is Donald Miller .
Yes, it is Donald Miller who disagrees.
What is his issue with the book?
@@dennisweidner288 it’s a great fable. Lots of fun stuff. But. Not history as written by a real historian.
@@peterruane9220 What do you think is historically incorrect?
It hurts my ears so much to hear him butcher the pronounciation of "Knudsen"
Hahah me2 :D
How interesting.
I think he may be over-glorifying the US efforts. Welding tanks wasn't an American invention, the only question was whether US welding was good enough. Also the idea that only letting capitalism rip can produce sufficient military equipment is belied by the massive Soviet output under extremely difficult conditions.
You mean the Soviet output (which wasn't all that impressive in the first place) that could never have happened without American steel, copper, aluminum and rubber? The Soviet output that only happened because because they didn't have to produce much food or other domestic goods because the US was supplying enough of it to allow the Soviets to focus only on war production? The state run economy is a failed idea. Get over it.
@@JM-ji9kx You're doing the Russian state a severe disservice and over-hyping the undoubtedly large material provision from US/UK. Personally I think 80k tanks is quite an achievement, as was the massive production of guns, ammunition and planes. The state may have been horrific, but the results are unquestionable.
He is saying in the US Capitalist system you needed to follow the bottom up model vs top down. WW1 production was top down and by the time any real quantity of our products were ready the war was virtually over. That was a centralized model dictated from top down and it failed vs what we achieved in WW2. If we were a totalitarian system like the Soviets yes you do top down because that's how their economy and system worked. In the US bottom up and allowing a profit to be made drove the private industry to innovate and produce at quantities virtually believed to be impossible.
This guy is hopeless. His description of the combat evolution of the F4U is a laugher. The Corsair had a "radial" engine, not "rotary." Also, the engine was a PW R2800, not a "2300." It gets worse. He clearly doesn't understand why the Corsair wasn't immediately adopted for use on carriers nor does he understand how the British developed procedures that made it a viable carrier borne fighter. He clearly doesn't understand U.S. tank development and strategy. His book is also riddled with errors. Good grief.