Page 95 - Airpower in 20th Century - Doctrines and Employment
P. 95

between “douhetIsm” And “close AIr support”. the germAn AIr wAr doctrIne In world wAr II  95


            strong air force as an independent Service.
               An air force equipped with approximately 390 long-range, four-engine bombers
            with a capacity of 2000 kg of explosive, incendiary and gas bombs – the latter had by
            the way already been demanded by Douhet – would reduce the enemy’s eagerness to
            attack since by means of such aircraft a war could immediately be conducted in his
            own center. Furthermore, the memorandum read: “Inflicting bomb terror on enemy
            capitals or industrial areas will result in moral collapse the faster the weaker the
            national attitude of the people and the more the metropolitan masses are oriented to-
            wards materialism and divided by social and political conflicts”. To gain Germany’s
            air superiority in Central Europe as fast as possible, Knauss recommended that the
            air force be augmented at the expense of naval armaments projects; after all, an air
            force equipped with 400 “large bomber aircraft” could be built with the means re-
            quired for the construction of two armored cruisers. In addition to bomber aircraft,
            Knauss also demanded reconnaissance aircraft while fighter aircraft, in his opinion,
            had no operational functions; he assigned them only operations in support of army
            and naval forces.
               This was clear evidence of the influence of Douhet’s doctrine, but Reich Minister
            of War Werner v. Blomberg, in a directive dating 16 August 1933, pointed out that he
            by no means intended to set up a “strategic air force”. The aim rather was to set up an
            “operational air force” that in the event of a European multi-front war would have to
            assume operational functions as part of a comprehensive strategy, either acting on its
                                                                              25
            own supported by patrol aircraft or interacting with army and naval forces.  Hence,
            the pendulum rather swung towards an air force designed to support the Army.
               On  26  February  1935,  Hitler  signed  the  decree  on  the  foundation  of  the
            Reichsluftwaffe, putting it as the third branch of the Wehrmacht on an equal footing
            with Army and Navy and placing it under the command and control of Hermann
                                        26
            Göring as commander-in-chief.  On 09 March 1935, Hitler had Göring proclaim
            officially that the German Reich was about to build up a German Air Force. In doing
            so, the Reich was to make its contribution to peacekeeping, acting within the scope
                                                                      27
            of the Air Pact, which had been suggested by the Western powers.  A few days later,
            during a solemn ceremony; Hitler gave the first fighter wing of the new German Air
            Force the name of “Jagdgeschwader Richthofen”.
               Despite this clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the Western powers had
            shown practically no reaction, thus encouraging Hitler to declare on 16 March 1935
            that he was no longer willing to submit to the arms limitations set out by the Treaty
            of Versailles. At the same time, he proclaimed the reintroduction of compulsory mili-


            25
               Cf. Deist, Die Aufrüstung der Wehrmacht (see Note 17), p. 484.
            26
               Cf. Rudolf Absolon, Die Wehrmacht im Dritten Reich, Vol. 3, Boppard 1973, p. 177.
            27
               Karl-Heinz Völker, Die deutsche Luftwaffe 1933-1939. Aufbau, Führung und Rüstung der Luftwaffe
               und die Entwicklung der deutschen Luftkriegstheorie (Beiträge zur Militär- und Kriegsgeschichte. Mil-
               itärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (ed.), Vol. 8). Stuttgart 1967, p. 68ff.
   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100