Dictators as (ineffective) micromanagers

I wouldn't call centralized planning with a ruthless ledership behind inefficient, a look at soviet 1942 production figures despite the massive disruption caused by occupation and moving the indistry East, the huge IL2 and T34 production figures or the US surprise at the speed of the USSR's nuclear programme shoud be proof enough of that, dictator backed programmes usually get results.
Where it fails is in the production choices, dictators have no more foresight than the average marketing specialist, and usually less, so they get to produce the wrong goods, not a critical failing in WW2, after all even Stalin could predict the Red Army needed tanks, rifles, guns, fighters, ground support planes, etc (though the failure to stock spares and align ammo production with the new types cost them dearly in 1941) but terrible when it comes to consumer goods.

 

Soviet Union had a huge bureucracy and central planning which enabled vast resources (which Russia had) far more efficiently than Nazi Germany where several party backed independent intitutions or projects raced and competed sometimes just to get favour from Hitler. When Hitler focused a specific subject result were taken of cource like V weapons or heavy tank design. Unfortunetely they were not war winning weapons like Manhattan Project.

 

I didn't say the Soviets were efficient, but they were organized. Britain didn't have the resources to build a bomb, so the organization is not important. My point is that is Germany had tried to build a bomb on a scale like the US did, it would have failed because too many organizations would have fought each other over turf

 

Well,Germany also had not the resources to build the bomb .
And,if Germany had the bomb,it still would be defeated .

 

IMHO,it is very questionable (and very dangerous) to start from the POV that in wartime,the decisions of a democraticly elected leader always will be more efficient than those of a dictator/non elected leader :it is sheer wishfull-thinking .

Efficiency =the optimum use of the available resources to execute an imposed aim .It is not about victory/defeat .

The decisions of a democraticly elected leader are influenced by parliament,electors,newspapers. A dictator is safeguarded against these things .

 

I think ToS dealt with that in mentioning the short term decision-making 'benefits' of dictatorship in comparison to the long term deficits.

I belong to a few small groups which are essentially benign dictatorships. Decisions are smooth and fairly easy and the group avoids committees etc. under the guidance of people they trust. Nice governmental concept, the benign Dictatorship, but I've yet to see a modern example that achieved it, and doubt I ever will.
Theory's nice, but reality tends to intervene...

 

There was indeed fierce rivalry between the army and the navy. Thus once one institution got a budget the other had little or no say in how it was spent. The implication is that Tojo could not micro manage the navy budget. He may have been able to do so for the Army budget but that to is in doubt. Furthermore the Japanese government was effectivly run by the council of which Tojo was a member and indeed the leading member but that doesn't mean he had anywhere near total control of said body. One can also find some pretty significant fueds and turf wars in the IJN and I suspect the IJA as well.

 

A dictator may have the power as well as the will to micromanage. In Democracies even if the leader has the will he usually doesn't have the power in general (although he may be able to for certain "pet" projects).

My impression is that much of the key work as far as German tank development goes was done without Hitler's micromanagment. Thus the question is not really a valid one.

Indeed a dictator can often cut through a lot of red tape. ON the other hand a democracy can set things up to do so as well. With a dictator doing it though you are dependent on the quality of the dictator's decision making while at least in theory a democracy allows for selecting the best man for the job. History shows however that democracies don't always live up to their potential.

Perhaps because they had other factors that "fouled up" the command processes? The US defeat at PH was because it was completely unexepected. Just like the initial German success vs the Soviets. The PHillipines was known to be indefenceable although and effort was being made to change this it simply wasn't in time. I'll let others more knowledgeable comment on Malaya. AS for Drumbeat it wasn't the case that the US had ample resources. Indeed there was a critical shortage of escort vessels and that was one of the big reasons for no convoys. Politics between the army and navy may have played a factor as well as people just not thinking (no blackouts early on).

I've seen nothing to indicate that King refused to consider convoys indeed just the opposite. Indeed from what I've read the lack of escorts was the big reason for not implementing a convoy system. In Kings case the US was really hopeing for another 6 months to year of peace before we went to war and they thought they at least had a few more months so the push hadn't been made early enough to start really cranking out escort vessels. In Chruchill's case did he really refuse to believe the Japanese would attack or was that just a lesser priority?

We are wondering a bit from the topic at hand though.

 

I don't see where the basis to conclude that a dictator is more or less likely to micromanage, or to make a "terribly bad choice"
One might also debate the advantage/disadvantage of a a dictator ordering production of a slightly flawed design quickly, rather than a committee spending months or years of debate before choosing the "perfect" design. (which may still end up flawed or obsolete anyways)

Why should a dictatorship be any more or less likely to be subject to poor command - ie because of cronyism?

The democracies made equally unsuitable choices in commanders, men like Gamelin, Gort, McArthur, Beretson etc were put into power not because they were the best men available, but because of heirarchy, not unlike a form of cronyism.

Who did Goering have as his commanders in the Battle of Britian, Sperrle & Kesselring - were they incompetant cronies?

And the RAF (despite supposedly having the better structure as part of a democratic nation) suffered from similar cronyism & infighting between Dowding, Leigh-Mallory, Park & Sholto Douiglas.
The RAF was losing pilots in the battles over France in 1941 by more than 8 to 1, yet Fighter Command's incompetance or wilful blindness couldn't change strategy. The Butt report indicated that the Bomber Command efforts were mostly inneffective in 1941, yet due to turf wars and stubborness they couldn't switch to a more effective strategy.

Boiling it down - I can't see that the LW was any less effective than the RAF due to cronyism or being in a dictatorship.

Absoutely correct.
Any leader - whether dictator or democratically elected - is equally capable of being a good or a poor manager, and are equally likely to promote subordinates who are weak or ineffective.

 

A dictator can choose to micromanage just about anything and everything. That option isn't available in most if any cases of democratically elected officials. As it's one man making the decisions a dictaror is going to be more likely to make choices that fit in the extremes thand a democratically ellected leader. It rather comes down to a democratic leader has to listen to the ideas of others and give them at least some consideration. A wise dictaror will but doesn't have to.

Because they often put loyalty to them at the top of the priority lists when selecting individuals. Democratic institution place other priorities. Those priorities often won't select the best but they won't select the wosrt very often either.

I'm not sure about the others but Mac was very well thought of at the time as a general. He also had a fair amount of political sway. The claim is not that democracies are perfect in this regard in any case but that dictaror ships can easily prove worse.

That's because to a large extent Hitler didn't try to replace everyone or even a large number of the people in charge of the Wehrmacht. Look what Stalin did on the other hand. A dictatorship doesn't have to make all these mistakes, indeed few will make all of them, but they are prone to them.

I don't think that's correct at all. While any leader can be a good or a poor manager that doesn't mean that the probabilities are equal, similarly with regards to their subordinates.

 

Historically, dictatorship is a rule and few democracies are an exception of a rule. Even democracies are ruled more or less rigidly by an elite which makes impression of free choice. Modern democracies are in reality electorates where the power isn't concentrated in a single person but rather in a hgroup of privileged individuals. Wealth makes an impression even more favorable. My country is kleptocracy, ruled by elected ordinary thieves. Once I knew that democracy was better, but now I am not sure any more.

 

The U.S. micromanagement is a good case in point. Layer after layer of Federal Bureaucracy springing up to control the things that State's Rights proponents could only dream of. Killing Jack Northrup's flying wing, YB-49 and YB-35, 50 years before the B-2 was finally approved is an example among others.

Good blast at the cleptos, Buddy. We have ours here as well.

 

??? The Flying wing was an idea well ahead of it's time. It didn't really become practicle until the technology had advanced a few more decades.

 

Killing "high risk" programmes comes natural to commitees, and generally is not that bad a thing, few things are as dangerous than a risk taker with lots of power.