Friday, April 20, 2012: The Lakeville Journal: The Engineers of Victory 1939-1945: The Forerunners of Steve Jobs

How stepping outside the box helped win the war

Thu, 04/26/2012 – 8:10am

By

Patrick L. Sullivan

patricks@lakevillejournal.com

 

Historian Paul Kennedy spoke April 20 of the joys, challenges and triumphs of unconventional thinking. Photo by Patrick L. Sullivan

LAKEVILLE — Yale University professor and historian Paul Kennedy was sitting in an armchair on the stage as people filed into Elfers Hall at The Hotchkiss School Friday, April 20, for his Salisbury Forum appearance.

He never budged.

He disclaimed any intent to create an F.D.R. fireside chat image. He had already spent the day teaching and wasn’t enthusiastic about the prospect of standing in front of a lectern for that evening’s talk.

Seated, he still managed to cover a lot of territory as he talked about his latest book, “The Engineers of Victory 1939-1945: The Forerunners of Steve Jobs.”

Kennedy said four years ago his literary agent asked if there was something he’d like to publish for his own pleasure. Kennedy replied he’d like to go back to the subject of World War II; he had started his writing career as a research assistant for Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart, a prominent military historian.

Kennedy, who is a professor of history and is the director of international security studies at Yale, said he didn’t want to write a general history, but was “interested in a particular level of people who worked for victory.”

“There are lots of books about the men at the top, and lots of grunts. The people in the middle get little attention.”

The people in the middle “are the problem solvers, the people who get things done, who think through knotty challenges and work toward solutions.”

Kennedy read a magazine article about Steve Jobs which got him thinking about the role of the problem solver. Jobs “was not an inventive genius,” said Kennedy. “He was not a Leonardo. He was a borrower, an adapter, an organizer and a manager.”

Jobs was one of “the people who, when given a problem, see it can be done in a better way, a different way. Such people have to be given freedom.”

Kennedy’s book focuses on four “tweakers” whose contributions, largely unsung, were crucial in winning the war.

The problems

Kennedy said in the middle of the war, “the Allies hadn’t lost but hadn’t won either.”

The Allies needed to do five things: protect merchant shipping in the Atlantic; control the air over France and Germany; assist the Soviets in blunting the German Blitzkrieg; “figure out how to land millions of men on hostile shorelines”; and be ready to move troops and materiel 7,000 miles across Pacific.

Kennedy said these goals were set in January 1943 at a conference in Casablanca. Two months later, merchant shipping losses in the Atlantic were heavier than ever. Allied bombers, the B17s and B24s, “were getting shot to ribbons.”

And in October 1943, 66 Flying Fortress bombers were shot down in a single morning.

The Allies suffered from bloody and futile landing attempts at Dieppe in France and Dakar in what was then French West Africa (now Senegal).

And in the Pacific 1,000 Marines were killed in a few hours at the island of Tarawa.

“The end of the war was not inevitable,” said Kennedy, but “given the preponderance of productive power, the Allies would win eventually.”

Solution: The Mustang

Enter the problem solvers and tweakers.

Ronnie Harker, an Englishman, was a World War I and Rolls Royce test pilot. During World War II he was also testing captured German aircraft and generally making himself useful.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) in the spring of 1942 had a bunch of P51s, a low-flying pursuit fighter commissioned by France. The RAF was not happy with them and was ready to scrap them.

Kennedy said someone at the RAF’s training facility suggested getting Harker to give the P51 one last look. Harker flew the plane three times.

“He marvels at its ability to turn on a dime. He can’t stall it — but he can’t get it above 19,000 feet,” — not nearly enough altitude, when Allied Liberators flying at 24,000 feet were getting shot down by Germans fighters flying at 30,000.

Harker noticed the distance between the P51 cockpit and nose is 93 inches, the same as the RAF’s Spitfire fighter, and suggested putting the Spitfire Rolls Merlin engine in the P51.

It was a success. The nimble plane, with the additional power, did things previously thought impossible.

But this particular bit of tweaking didn’t have an effect until 20 months later, because bureaucrats in Washington blocked the P51.

“Only when the 66 B17s were shot down did [U.S. Army Air Force General] Hap Arnold lose his temper and demand a long-distance fighter that could protect the bombers,” said Kennedy.

Production then cranked up and gave the world the plane subsequently known as the Mustang.

“What if?” asked Kennedy. What if nobody had thought of Harker? What if the distance from cockpit to nose had not been 93 inches? What if nobody read Harker’s report?

“By D-Day the Allies had 11,000 aircraft; the Luftwaffe had 875.”

Unexpected innovations

Admiral Ben Moreell, who was friendly with F.D.R., was in charge of building new naval harbors and airbases before the war. He visited Pearl Harbor in 1938 and noticed there were no dry-docks for repairing ships.

“He says, ‘This is stupid, there are no docks for repair and it’s 4,200 miles to San Diego.’”

Moreell ordered the construction of two repair docks, saying, “Suppose our ships are damaged by a Japanese surprise attack?”

Two weeks after Pearl Harbor Moreell sold F.D.R. on the need to create construction battalions, better known by the nickname derived from the acronym CB — the Seabees.

Kennedy said Moreell went to New York City and recruited skilled construction workers — 75,000 of them in the first couple of months. Eventually the Seabees had almost 400,000 men, causing the Army to scramble to try and find men for their equivalent outfit.

The Seabees were critical in the Pacific Island-hopping campaign, which had been foreseen back in 1919 by Marine Captain Pete Ellis, an eccentric man who, bored after World War I, wrote a paper called “Advanced Fleet Bases in Micronesia.”

The paper “forecast the entire island-hopping Pacific war,” said Kennedy. He wrote about special forces and landing craft — radical innovations at the time.

Ellis died young but when World War II came the Marines still had the paper. “Only Marine historians know about Ellis.”

Commanded Desert Rats

Percy Hobart was the first commander of what became the British Seventh Armored Division, or The Desert Rats.

Hobart had insulted a superior officer while stationed in Cairo and, as a result, in the middle of the Battle of Britain he was serving as a corporal in the Home Guard, protecting installations from German aircraft with a .303 rifle.

Kennedy’s mentor-to-be Basil Liddell Hart “writes a piece in the Times on ‘The Shame of Not Using Our Talent.’ Churchill reads it, and gets boiling mad.

“He orders Percy reinstated and gives him an experimental division, not a battalion, to get through Normandy.

“Churchill said the war was not going to be won by gentlemen officers who ride their horses around Hyde Park.”

Hobart’s group came up with several innovations for tanks — known as Hobart’s Funnies.

Tweaks included modified Sherman tanks with a flail to explode mines and carve out a path through minefields; a tank equipped with a flamethrower; a tank with a rolled up “sort of Aladdin’s magic carpet” device that enabled the tank to go over hedges or tank traps.

“The Germans had never seen anything like it.”

The Canadians, Kennedy said, especially the ones who got shot up at Dieppe, loved Hobart’s Funnies, but U.S. Gen. Omar Bradley refused to take advantage, referring to it as English public school silliness.

“So Omaha Beach had 3,500 casualties but the Canadians had 28,” Kennedy said.

As much as innovation, “this is a story of obstructionism and blindness,” said Kennedy. “In what circumstances or cultures do the problem solvers operate? Are there CEOs, bosses, university presidents who say ‘Yeah, try it out.’

“The audiences that respond best to this are engineers, scientists and middle management — people dedicated to problem solving.”

The challenge is in transferring the tweaker mentality from the “cultures of encouragement” to the “culture of dislike of changing systems, or rocking the boat.

“I never had as much fun with any book,” Kennedy said of his research for this book. “There were names I didn’t know after 40 years of reading.”

Sunday, February 26, 2012: The Lakeville Journal: Human Terrain: War Becomes Academic

Filmmaker explains how film’s purpose evolved

Thu, 03/01/2012 – 10:24am

By

Patrick L. Sullivan

patricks@lakevillejournal.com

SALISBURY — James Der Derian, one of the filmmakers responsible for “Human Terrain,” said that the film is, if nothing else, an example of starting to make one film and ending up with something quite different.

The Salisbury Forum sponsored the unusual documentary film at the Moviehouse in Millerton on Sunday, Feb. 26, with a question and answer period after the show.

“Human Terrain” is described by the filmmakers — Der Derian, and David Udris and Michael Udris, as “an expose of the U.S. effort to enlist America’s best and the brightest in a global struggle for the hearts and minds of its enemies.

“After winning the short battle of ’shock and awe’ in Iraq, but losing the long war to bring democracy and peace to the Middle East, the U.S. military began a controversial program to ‘operationalize’ culture as an instrument of irregular warfare.”

The film shows Marines training in the Mojave Desert and at Quantico, Va., working at first with other Marines dressed up as Iraqis, and later with much more sophisticated role-playing exercises.

The idea was to make “cultural awareness a key element of [the military’s] counterinsurgency strategy.”

Der Derian said that the “Shock and Awe” strategy “was knocked on its back legs by Fallujah.”

“Counter-insurgency has no front lines.”

One of the central questions raised by the film is whether academics — specifically, anthropologists — should become involved with the military.

The film is also the story of a casualty — and becomes very personal for the filmmakers.

Der Derian wrote on the humanterrainmovie.com website that the team “interviewed the key players as well as the most vocal critics.

“However, our original intentions as well as moral fixities were undone when Michael Bhatia, a colleague, collaborator and friend, was killed in Afghanistan while we were making the film.”

Bhatia, a graduate student at Brown University, was studying how “the Pentagon was creating new doctrines, strategies and organizations to help return some symmetry to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.”

What the filmmakers didn’t know is that Bhatia was being recruited for his expertise. When he joined a “Human Terrain team” in Afghanistan, they kept in touch with him and were preparing for a video interview when Bhatia was killed by a roadside bomb in November 2008.

The filmmakers do not appear to endorse any particular point of view. People with opposing opinions are treated in a neutral manner.

If there is a bias, it is personal, with the death of Bhatia looming large over the film.

During the question and answer period, someone asked if the Human Terrain approach had been successful at all.

Der Derian said, “We were more interested in the shift in the American way of war. In terms of neutralizing Al Qaeda, yes, it’s been successful.”

Bhatia did find that the HT program did decrease mortality, Der Derian said. “But is going in with what we think is a perfect tool more likely to provoke violence?”

As to the perceived ambivalence of the film, Der Derian said that is the result of arguments among the three filmmakers, who argued between edits.

Asked how the ethical issues for anthropologists are any different than those facing the physicists who worked on the atomic bomb, Der Derian began by describing World War I as the chemists’ war, World War II as the physicists’ war, World War III (or the Cold War) as the political scientists’ war, and World War IV — now — as the anthropologist’s war.

Der Derian said that anthropologists are acutely aware of their discipline’s history as “the handmaids of colonialism,” and in the pacification program during the Vietnam War.

“Anthropologists are carrying a lot more baggage” than those in other disciplines.

Asked about recent unrest in Afghanistan over U.S. troops burning Korans, Der Derian said, “I’m sure whoever did that received cultural sensitivity training.”

He added that if he has to choose ‘between conspiracy and a screwup” he will go with the latter.

“Even with perfect information, in an impossible situation, rationality won’t win the day.”

December 8, 2011 The Lakeville Journal: “Seeking Salvation at The Salisbury Forum”

SALISBURY — Anthony Kronman began his talk on “The Humanities in the Age of Disenchantment” by quoting Max Weber talking about “disenchantment” in 1917. He wound his way around to poet Walt Whitman and the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza in the course of an unusual talk at the Salisbury School Friday, Dec. 2, as part of the Salisbury Forum lecture series.

Kronman, a former dean of the Yale Law School and currently teaching in that university’s Directed Studies Program, said that Weber, speaking to students in Munich aganst the backdrop of Germany’s impending defeat in World War I and rising social unrest, was concerned that academic life in the modern university was increasingly disconnected from the spiritual foundations of Christian Europe.

Weber, according to Kronman, saw a problem in that academics were increasingly concerned with adding to the world’s accumulated store of knowledge in their particular disciplines, knowing all the while that any unique contribution was certain to be superseded in short order, and thus ephemeral.

Kronman said that Weber felt that God had been exiled from public institutions and cultural life — “stripped of a connection with the divine and eternal.”

As the emphasis in academia and modern life shifted from its religious foundation, humanity took over the role of God. “Humans became masters of their future; and their endeavors were increasingly “defined by their transience.”

He said the American tradition of higher education began with small colleges dedicated to turning out “young Christian gentlemen.” Students learned a core curriculum of classics, sciences and mathematics, taught by polymath professors who could and did teach any subject.

The faculty of those colleges (almost all of which had a specific religious affiliation), understood their purpose as the “transmission of old knowledge, not the creation of new knowledge.”

But as the modern research university evolved, and separate departments were established, the emphasis shifted to adding to the store of knowledge.

Kronman pointed to the growing secularization of American life, the growing diversity of society with the waves of immigration in the latter half of the 19th century (and into the early 20th century), the subsequent reinforcement of “consumerist ambition” and the work of Charles Darwin as factors that resulted in the de-emphasis of God.

Kronman then took an unexpected turn, arguing for a new kind of academics that moves between a rational, Aristotelian view of the world and what he called “the God of Abraham.”

Using Whitman as a starting point, Kronman spoke of the individual as “an unduplicable reflection of the divine,” and then connected to Spinoza, the 17th-century Jewish writer, and his particular view of faith as a means of reconnecting the modern university student’s work “to something invulnerable to time, and thus save it from the meaningless.”

Or, as Kronman unapologetically put it, to seek salvation.

The Lakeville Journal Co., LLC ©2011. All Rights Reserved.