Talk:Casablanca directive

Military history: Aviation / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	World War II task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Name of the directive

Stor stark7 looking on the internet using a Google search. I could only find one reference to the "Combined Chiefs of Staff Directive for the Bomber offensive". on the web,[1] none on SCHOLAR and three (but only two in English) in BOOKS, only one that was accessible and it was the same one as on the net.

But a Google search on "Casablanca directive" returns:

web: "about 578 English pages for "Casablanca directive" -wikipedia"
BOOKS 247 on "Casablanca directive"
SCHOLAR about 69 for "Casablanca directive"

so unless you have more, than one source I suggest that we removed the "Combined Chiefs of Staff Directive for the Bomber offensive" as a title because the CCS is already mentioned in the first sentence "approved by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at their 65th meeting on 21 January 1943" --PBS (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill in closing the ring and the and Wise in the The Official History of the Royal Canadian Air Force calls it the "Casablanca directive" so unless you have more than one source the title "Combined Chiefs of Staff Directive for the Bomber offensive" should either be junked or become a footnote --PBS (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of the quote

The ordering of the information contained in the directive is in the same order as in this article. I see no point in repeating the line "primary objective will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened." twice in the same section.[2] --PBS (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I can see that we have a problem: The Official History of the Royal Canadian Air Force. By S F Wise. p. 657 says:

The first sentence of the Casablanca directive told the 'bomber barons' that their "primary objective will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened." But the Telex that was issued to

In Harris, Arthur Travers; Cox, Sebastian (1995). Despatch on War Operations: 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945, Routledge, ISBN 071464692X. p.196 The actual source of the directive sent to the RAF and it is not ordered the way that the "object" comes after the Primary [targets] section.

"Primary: Subject to exigencies of weather and of tactical feasibility (see object); -"

...

Object: Primarily the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened. Every opportunity to be taken to attack Germany by day to destroy objectives that are unsuitable for night attack, to sustain continuous pressure on German morale, to impose heavy losses on German day fighter force and to conserve German fighter force away from the Russian and Mediterranean theatres of war.

Here is another source that says the VIII Air force received a similar directive (Robert F. Futrell Vol I. Ideas concepts doctrine: basic thinking in the United States Air Force 1901 - 1960 p 152) It cites in End note 85 Bernard Boylan, Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter, USAF historical study 136 (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Research Studies Institute, 1955), 58-72; Webster and Frankland The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany 1939-1945 4: 153-54.

The cited source is that that is the British Official history of the Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany.

--PBS (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now found another source that might explain it see "Closing the Ring", Winston Churchill p. 458. Notice that Churchill does not quote all of the telex that was sent he just mentiones the bits he thinks are significant.

BTW. it seems to me that the "Object" section was written in such a way (to halves) that it is a political compromise between the RAF and the USAAF. --PBS (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, I think you are grasping why I inserted the quote at the beginning. The article should start with what the people in charge thought was the most important part of the directive, that part should not be relegated it to the bottom which makes it look like an afterthought or a secondary or third priority. When you do a search for the directive, this is invariably the quote that is used, even the US strategic bombing survey only states the morale bit. I think this article needs some further work and clarifications on other points to, I dont have the source at hand, but it should be clarified that the list of targets isn't really the Cassablanca directive, it is simply a later effort at interpretation of the directive that perhaps should have its own article.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 08:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Harris source. It is the encrypted telex sent to Bomber Command. I am not sure when that would have been released to the public, but probably not until the 30 year rule was up. Any way I have put in the Churchill version. But it misses out all of the bits for the USAAF --PBS (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stor stark7 AFAICT the sources that you have used are based on Google books. If not then please look up the footnotes and find out what the source is that they have used and I suspect that we will find that the cite Churchill, who does not quote the Casablanca directive but paraphrases it. As we know his histories tend to reflect a certain bias "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." --PBS (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, please be more careful when using your sources, especially your interpretation of primary sources is questionable. I dont know why I constantly have to fight these little battles, but to humor you, since you seem to revel in primary sources, please go to Page 781 of The official Casablanca records

See also for example: [3] or [www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_6.htm]

The Combined Bomber Offensive gained its first overt official sanction on 21 January 1943. On that date the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), in conference with their heads of government, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, issued a CCS directive for the Bomber Offensive from the United Kingdom. It defined the goal of the Bomber Offensive in the broadest terms, stating “your primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.” Next, it specified four specific target sets: submarine construction yards, the German aircraft industry, transportation, and oil plants. It further suggested “other objectives of great importance from the political or military point of view,” such as Berlin and the Biscay U-boat ports.4 The directive allowed Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force wide latitude in accomplishing their joint mission. As part of the discussions 95 JANUARY 1943 concerning the directive, but not part of it, the Combined Chiefs, at Gen George C. Marshall’s suggestion, placed Air Chief Marshal Charles Portal in command of both strategic air forces. The Eighth’s commander, Maj Gen Ira C. Eaker, retained the autonomy to decide the technique and method he would employ.5

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 09:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Theater directive only?

Is there additional information missing from this article, or was the directive only intended for the war against Germany? Awotter (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the first sentence "Directive to the appropriate British and U.S. Air Force Commanders to govern the operation of the British and U.S. Bomber Commands in the United Kingdom". --PBS (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quotes

From the history: "07:33, 20 March 2009 GraemeLeggett (→Contents: use quote not quotation per MoS, copyedit)". Can't see it in Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations --PBS (talk)

my mistake. its referenced from {{quotation}} "NOTE: This template should not be used for block quotes in article text. For long quotations in the text, the Manual of Style recommends using the HTML blockquote element, such as through the use of the {{Quote}} template."GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not two

Can't say it is two directives because there is almost certainly another version (or more) sent to the USAAF bomber commands.

A comment on the note in the edit history: "17:32, 27 March 2009 Mugs2109 "(Published by Office of CCS, not US State Dept)" . The footnote does not say it was published by the US state department. "Combined Chiefs of Staff designation C.C.S. 166/1/D (United States Department of State p. 781)" means that the designation "Combined Chiefs of Staff designation C.C.S. 166/1/D" can be found in the cited source "United States Department of State" page 781 (Wikipedia:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing).

Further this is not Wikisource, if all we are going to do is list the content of two of the directives then they should be moved to wikisource.

For this reason I have reverted to an earlier version. --PBS (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - there will be the one initial directive which has been written up for the "end users".GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful for our readers that we list both of them because different secondary sources quote from different versions, which makes it confusing if one does not know that the initial one was re-ordered for the directive sent out to the RAF. --PBS (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the note

"The RAF Bomber command version contains most of the information that is in the C.C.S. memorandum but in a different order and in the note {clarifyme|can we say if the note is part of the document or an addition by Harris?}"

The note is not contemporary because it is phrased in the past tense "14th February 1942 and was issued to the appropriate British and United States Air Force Commanders" This seems to me to make it clear that it was written by Harris sometime after the Directive was issued. --PBS (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading the note that might not have been enough to determine that it was not part of the directive, but the phrase "general directive No. 5 above," is a reference to the sequence of directives listed in the book Despatch on War Operations: so I think that clinches it. --PBS (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]