No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The War Department in World War II*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Organization is customarily considered a means to an end. The purposes to be realized are of first importance, while administrative structure is a lesser consideration. Thus organization is supposed to describe the division of work already decided upon and the assignment of authority in performing a given task. Only technicians and a few students who find some queer fascination in detail need give particular attention to organizational matters.
However widely held, any such attitude about organization ignores several fundamentals. For one thing, conception of purpose and organization are too closely interrelated to say that one precedes the other. Indeed, in any large enterprise the objectives to be accomplished usually represent the composite views of different component parts. Sometimes conflicting purposes have been fairly well resolved at the center of an agency, and oftentimes they are permitted to flourish without much check, let alone guidance. Frequently you must know the individual elements in order to understand the whole. Finally, organization vitally affects the ambitions, reputations, and fortunes of many individual persons. It is often the battleground which reflects much more far-reaching beliefs than strictly technical concerns about the most efficient method for performing a job.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1946
References
1 This reorganization was embodied in Executive Order No. 9028, February 28, 1942, which drew upon the authority vested in the President by the First War Powers Act of December 18, 1941. It was further elaborated in War Department Circular No. 59, March 2, 1942. Both the Executive Order and the War Department Circular became effective on March 9, 1942.
2 U. S. Cong. Senate. Committee on Military Affairs, Hearings before … on a Bill to Establish a Department of Defense Coördination and Control, 76th Cong., 2nd. Sess. (Mar. 6, 1942), pp. 2, 13.Google Scholar General Joseph T. McNarney was chairman of a committee of three which handled the War Department reorganization. Subsequently he was Deputy Chief of Staff, Commanding General of the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, and Commanding General of the American Forces in Europe.
3 See Annual Report of the Secretary of War, 1941, pp. 8–9.
4 See “Biennial Report of the Chief of Staff, July 1, 1941,” in Annual Report of the Secretary of War, 1941, p. 54.
5 See Millett, John D., “The Direction of Supply Activities in the War Department; An Administrative Survey,” in this Review, Vol. 30, p. 249 and p. 475 (Apr. and June, 1944).Google Scholar
6 Biennial Report of the Chief of Staff of the U. S. Army, July 1, 1941, to June 30, 1943, pp. 32–33.
7 See Peak, George W., “The War Department Manpower Board,” in this Review, Vol. 40, p. 1 (Feb., 1946).Google Scholar
8 See Report of the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces to the Secretary of War, Jan. 4, 1944, p. 42.
9 See Second Report of the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces to the Secretary of War, Feb. 27, 1945, p. 30.
10 See Third Report of the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces to the Secretary of War, Nov. 12, 1945, pp. 59–72.
11 See Administrative Management in the Army Service Forces (Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1945).
12 New York Times, Mar. 22, 1946.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.