United States Strategic Bombing Survey
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS, (US) inventory of strategic bombing) was a commission in the United States that carried out a series of studies of the same name into the effectiveness of the Allied, in particular the US, air strikes against the Axis powers in World War II Europe and Asia carried out. Other topics included medical care for the wounded, espionage and counter-espionage, and war production and distribution.
background
At the suggestion of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in November 1944 was Secretary of War ( Secretary of War ) Stimson the order of forming the Commission. The aim was to study the effects of aerial warfare in World War II, to create a basis for assessing the importance and potential of airborne power as an instrument of military strategy , and to plan the future development of the armed forces. The USSBS was initially only carried out for Europe; On the orders of President Harry S. Truman , after the surrender of Japan in August 1945, the investigation of the Pacific theater was added.
Led by Franklin D'Olier, chairman of an insurance company, the commission employed over 1,000 experts from the military and private sectors. The investigation in Japan was conducted from September to December 1945 and a large number of reports were filed by June 1946. This material and the final reports together made up the official record of the USSBS.
content
The summary reports are split between the European and Pacific theaters of war, with the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the subject of a special investigation. The US Strategic Bombing Surveys were not limited to air strikes by B-29 bombers on cities and industrial areas, but also covered mine-laying, attacks by carrier-based units, the structure of industrial areas and air raid protection measures, as well as interviews with Japanese military personnel and official representatives.
Results
The summaries of the reports were generally positive on the benefits of Allied strategic bombing, but the results were inconsistent on some specific areas of the Axis war economy. For example, the report on Europe documented increasing German war production for some material categories, despite considerable Allied bombing. The increase in production in 1944 - for example of fighter planes - was only possible through extraordinary efforts on the part of the Germans. These increases would have been even greater without the bombing. However, later research showed that the German war-time production documents were often revised upwards by the manufacturers in order to avoid political consequences.
Another example is the excessive number of German fighter aircraft produced, as the conversions of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 for the years 1944–1945 that were carried out in the last days of the war were also classified as new production. This information was not yet known when the investigation was completed. All in all, the Strategic Bombing Survey is a very good source of information.
The well-known economist John Kenneth Galbraith was one of the leading investigators.
In total there were three major investigations:
- Strategic Bombing Survey (Europe)
- Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific)
- Strategic Bombing Survey (Atomic attacks)
Web links
- Summary of the Strategic Bombing Survey (Europe)
- Summary of the Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific)
- Summary of the Strategic Bombing Survey (Atomic attacks) ( Memento of October 11, 2004 in the Internet Archive )
- United States Strategic Bombing Survey Reports
- US Strategic Bombing Survey, The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chairman's Office, June 19, 1946
- A scan of the summary report (reprint from 1987) is on the press website of the US Air Force: PDF, 126 pages
- Office of Air Force History - United States Air Force (Ed.), 1986: The Strategic Air War Against Germany and Japan: A Memoir (295 pages)
- Sophia Dafinger, not a zero hour. Social science expertise and the American lessons of the air war , in: Zeithistorische Forschungen 17 (2020), pp. 11–35.