Not fallen, but flooded: The War Department supply bureaus in 1917

摘要

This work examines the five War Department supply bureaus. The Engineer, Medical, Ordnance, Quartermaster and Signal Departments were the nucleus of the system to support the troops in the field, develop equipment, and purchase necessary items for the Army.;What caused the near collapse of the United States' mobilization program in 1917? This dissertation will show that the bureaus failed in 1917 because their organizational system was designed for financially accountable and economical purchase in support of a small peacetime force, not operationally efficient high volume procurement at an accelerated tempo for a large force overseas. The real culprit proved to be a major change in American national security strategy that placed more pressure on the organizational structure of the military establishment than its designers had intended it to bear. With the commitment to send a mass army to France, the managerial form of the War Department no longer matched its function. As the scale and scope of responsibilities increased, the supply bureaus did not fall, but were flooded by the requirements of an unprecedented and unanticipated mission.;The story of 1917 is one of an administrative system striving to adapt to rapid growth. Within the span of eight months, American plans changed from a strategy of mobile defense of U.S. coasts and territories to the deployment of millions across the ocean to fight a war of attrition in France. Although the bureaus were viable institutions before the war, the existing bureau form proved incompatible with this evolving wartime function. After they had analyzed events in Europe, bureau leaders decided to utilize the existing forms and structures to manage the new functions and strategies. Because it initially appeared that many of the pre-war assumptions about the operating tempo and size of the army would remain valid, it seemed this moderate approach would succeed. But as the realization of the depth and breadth of the commitment to the Allied coalition clarified, the stresses on the existing system increased. Progress in many areas (the bureaus found sources of supply, brought in thousands of new personnel, and adjusted their internal systems) was not enough to retain the confidence of civilian leaders. Overall bureau performance reveals the incompatibility of an existing system with a new mission rather than some conspiracy, general incompetence, or internal power struggle. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).