Posts Tagged ‘second world war’

The US auto industry

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

We have been reading about the trials of the Big Three auto makers for weeks now. Last week, Fox News had a retired General Motors VP on complaining that GM won the Second World War and so we should be happy to bail them out now. We owe them.

I see almost no mention of the other car makers in the US, like Toyota, Honda, BMW and Mercedes Benz. I guess they don’t need a bailout. The fact remans that hundreds of thousands of cars are made in the US by other companies. What is the big difference between them and the Big Three ?

The United Auto Workers Union.

I was also reading, for the fourth or fifth time, Max Hasting’s history of Overlord, the D-Day invasion. In it, he has a section on the weapons and material of the Allies, compared to the Germans. At one point, he makes a statement that, in every instance, the Allies’ infantry and armor weapons were inferior to the Germans’. The only exception was the Garand rifle, invented by a US Army civilian. The most egregious example was the Sherman tank. I have a book written by a former engineer officer who was assigned to a tank recovery battalion in Normandy in WWII. The title of the book is Deathtrap, the name given to the Sherman by many of its crews. During his service in France and Germany, from the invasion to the end of the war, US armored units suffered 600% losses in Sherman tanks. That is, they lost their entire force of tanks six times over before they were done. The US built 88,000 Sherman tanks (not 40,000 as in that link), of which 40,000 were handed over to the British. Finally, the British equipped the Sherman with a more powerful gun and called those tanks the “Firefly.” The British Sherman crews called the tank “Tommy cookers” and “Ronsons.” Both names referred to the tendency of the tank to catch fire easily when hit.

My point in relating this bit of military history (although it may be news to some) is to make a point. After the war, US auto makers quickly resumed civilian production and were unsurpassed in the auto business until the 1970s when German and Japanese auto makers had recovered from war damage and had caught up with superior designs. The US auto makers excelled in making large numbers of mediocre cars and tanks. They were not innovative. The Germans designed and built the Tiger tank, whose proper name was panzerkampfwagen VI, in three years, the same time frame in which the Sherman was designed and built.

What we have now is an industry that is second generation Industrial Age, heavily burdened with old union contracts and pension obligations, trying to compete with fourth generation industries. It excelled in building large numbers on long, fixed assembly lines. Henry Ford established that pattern in the 1920s. They have not improved upon his work since. A bailout will begin the socialization of American industry with five year plans and all the accoutrements of a planned economy.

UPDATE: Here is more on the rest of the auto industry, which has been very much ignored by Washington. I’m sure they hope it continues.

Bush haters move on to history

Monday, June 30th, 2008

The author of a novel advocating the assassination of George Bush, has moved on to Churchill and Roosevelt. The book is Human Smoke and is an indictment of the Allies in World War II because they stood up to Hitler at last and refused to accept that final aggression. The author, apparently a pacifist, sets out to attack Churchill and Roosevelt but does it in a dishonest way. His novel, Checkpoint seems to have outraged even the New York Times, rather tolerant of most Bush-haters. The Booklist review gives a bit of the plot:

Jay and Ben are old friends who haven’t seen each other in a few years. A former teacher who has fallen on hard times, Jay is very, very upset about the war in Iraq. He has expressed his objections by marching in an antiwar demonstration in the nation’s capital, but the protest has had no effect. Now Jay has asked Ben, a writer currently working on a book about the cold war, to bring a tape recorder to a Washington, D.C., hotel room because Jay wants to talk about his decision to assassinate the president.

A columnist in The Independent has picked up on this pacifist nihilism and brought more light on this mindset.

Winston Churchill? Today we only remember his heroic opposition to Nazism. But while he was against gassing and tyranny in Europe, he was passionately in favour of it for “uncivilised” human beings whose riches he wanted to seize. In the 1920s, Iraqis rose up against British imperial rule, and Churchill as Colonial Secretary thought of a good solution: gas them. He wrote: “I do not understand this squeamishness… I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.” It would “spread a lively terror”.

He does not mention, and may not even be aware of the fact that Churchill goes on to confirm that by “poisoned” he meant tear gas. He may not know it because he took the lines from Baker’s book above.

The correction (unacknowledged by the writers) is here.

“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,” Baker quotes, but if one returns to the original memorandum, found in the Churchill Papers in Cambridge, it goes on to make it clear that the idea was not to use “deadly gasses” against the enemy, but rather ones aimed at “making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory [i.e., tear] gas.” Churchill goes on to write: “The moral effect should be so good as to keep loss of life reduced to a minimum” and “Gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror yet would leave no serious permanent effect on most of those affected.”

I am belaboring this point because we have begun to see a similar pacifist nihilism in the presidential campaign. The attacks on John McCain’s military record, the refusal to see progress in Iraq, attempts to undercut the war on radical Islam (perhaps because some would rather lose than see Bush win anything), all seem to suggest that some have gone beyond politics to some sort of lunatic antipathy to American civil discourse. I think we have seen only the beginning of this.