5 ms·

Since you didn't qualify your question, the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 and had no problem converting it back a

Since you didn't qualify your question, the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 and had no problem converting it back at the end when conditions changed.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 Source? Defence production directives don’t change ownership.
- whycome 2y ago
  Are they directives if the manufacturers don't have a choice?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  But they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941 [1][2]. Management was conserved and largely left to its own decisions. When workers struck, mines and factories were nationalised [3], but that was the exception. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 [2] https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-history-of-defense-contract-administration/ https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-his... [3] https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_History_of_Nationalization_in_the_US-Hanna-NSP.pdf https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_Hist...
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941. That they were legally required to accept. "Boeing, you have to make X B-17s for Y dollars" is a nationalization just as much as "Boeing, we're going to use your stuff to make X B-17s".
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > That they were legally required to accept Again, source? Because to my knowledge, this wasn’t true. The requirements for public tender were lifted, which just meant contracts could be sole sourced. Those contracts were negotiated and paid for [1]. There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. [1] https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-war-supply-contracts/ https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-...
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or any other officer, board, commission, or governmental corporation author- ized by the President, may acquire by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or may cause proceedings to be instituted in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings, to acquire by con- demnation, any real property, temporary use thereof, or other interest therein, together with any personal property located thereon or used therewith, that shall be deemed necessary, for military, naval, or other war purposes, such proceedings to be in accordance with the Act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat . 357), or any other applicable Federal statute, and may dispose of such property or interest therein by sale, lease, or otherwise, in accordance with section 1 (b) of the Act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat . 712) > Deliveries of material under all orders placed pursuant to the authority of this paragraph and all other naval contracts or orders and deliveries of material under all Army contracts or orders shall, in the discretion of the President, take priority over all deliveries for private account or for export. > Deliveries under any contract or order specified in this subsection (a) may be assigned priority over deliveries under any other contract or order ; and the President may require acceptance of and performance under such contracts or orders in preference to other contracts or orders for the purpose of assuring such priority. Whenever the President is satisfied that the fulfillment of requirements for the defense of the United States will result in a shortage in the supply of any material or of any facilities for defense or for private account or for export, the President may allocate such material or facilities in such manner, upon such conditions and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate in the public interest and to promote the national defense. > "The President shall determine the amount of the fair and just compensation to be paid for any property requisitioned and taken over pursuant to this Act and the fair value of any prop- erty returned under section 2 of this Act, but each such determination shall be made as of the time it is requisitioned or returned, as the case may be, in accordance with the provision for just compensation in the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States . All direct quotes from the Second War Powers Act in 1942. https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legisworks.org/congress/77/publaw-507.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legiswork... Further formalized post-war in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950. > There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. It's still nationalization if you make out like a bandit in the process.

Since you didn't qualify your question, the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 and had no problem converting it back at the end when conditions changed.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 Source? Defence production directives don’t change ownership.

whycome 2y ago
Are they directives if the manufacturers don't have a choice?
ceejayoz 2y ago
But they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941 [1][2]. Management was conserved and largely left to its own decisions. When workers struck, mines and factories were nationalised [3], but that was the exception. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 [2] https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-history-of-defense-contract-administration/ https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-his... [3] https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_History_of_Nationalization_in_the_US-Hanna-NSP.pdf https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_Hist...
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941. That they were legally required to accept. "Boeing, you have to make X B-17s for Y dollars" is a nationalization just as much as "Boeing, we're going to use your stuff to make X B-17s".
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > That they were legally required to accept Again, source? Because to my knowledge, this wasn’t true. The requirements for public tender were lifted, which just meant contracts could be sole sourced. Those contracts were negotiated and paid for [1]. There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. [1] https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-war-supply-contracts/ https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-...
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or any other officer, board, commission, or governmental corporation author- ized by the President, may acquire by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or may cause proceedings to be instituted in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings, to acquire by con- demnation, any real property, temporary use thereof, or other interest therein, together with any personal property located thereon or used therewith, that shall be deemed necessary, for military, naval, or other war purposes, such proceedings to be in accordance with the Act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat . 357), or any other applicable Federal statute, and may dispose of such property or interest therein by sale, lease, or otherwise, in accordance with section 1 (b) of the Act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat . 712) > Deliveries of material under all orders placed pursuant to the authority of this paragraph and all other naval contracts or orders and deliveries of material under all Army contracts or orders shall, in the discretion of the President, take priority over all deliveries for private account or for export. > Deliveries under any contract or order specified in this subsection (a) may be assigned priority over deliveries under any other contract or order ; and the President may require acceptance of and performance under such contracts or orders in preference to other contracts or orders for the purpose of assuring such priority. Whenever the President is satisfied that the fulfillment of requirements for the defense of the United States will result in a shortage in the supply of any material or of any facilities for defense or for private account or for export, the President may allocate such material or facilities in such manner, upon such conditions and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate in the public interest and to promote the national defense. > "The President shall determine the amount of the fair and just compensation to be paid for any property requisitioned and taken over pursuant to this Act and the fair value of any prop- erty returned under section 2 of this Act, but each such determination shall be made as of the time it is requisitioned or returned, as the case may be, in accordance with the provision for just compensation in the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States . All direct quotes from the Second War Powers Act in 1942. https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legisworks.org/congress/77/publaw-507.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legiswork... Further formalized post-war in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950. > There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. It's still nationalization if you make out like a bandit in the process.