The Command of the Air

CHAPTER II. Aerial Defense

CHAPTER II Aerial Defense My WORTHY opponents have often been pleased to call me a "theorist"-meaning a visionary-when confronting me with their "practical" and "realistic" points of view. Engineer Attal writes in the article cited above: I am not an opponent of General Douhet. I discuss his ideas, not to refute but to clarify them. As I am accustomed by my profession to single out the reality of any problem I have to consider, I will try here to translate the theory into practice. From the general I will come down to the specific. Engineer Attal-my courteous opponent will bear with mereminds me a little of one of those ladies who, when gossiping about their friends, say: "Oh, so-and-so? Oh, yes, she is lovely, charming and virtuous, but ..." and then go on to paint so-and-so blacker than the devil himself. He begins by complimenting me so much I blush. He repeats several times that he is not one of my opponents, but... By the contents of his article he always ends by pointing out that, at least practically and realistically, I am sunk in error up to my neck. In fact, he supports the absolute necessity of auxiliary aviation, attaches great importance to aerial defense, and recognizes only the relative decisiveness of the aerial field. Practically, he is against everything I stand for; and I am inclined to ask myself what he would have written about my theories if he had not declared at the beginning that he was one of my "fervent followers." But, jesting aside, I must admit that his system of criticism is very convenient, especially when valid arguments are lacking. In effect he says, "Oh, yes, theoretically it cannot be said that you are wrong; but practically you are grossly mistaken." This is con285 The Command of The Air venient, because no one can have practice in this particular question . If I am a theorist-and Engineer Attal will allow me to say it-he is a poet and a dreamer. In regard to aerial defense, the question to which I shall limit myself for the time heing, he makes statements of this sort:· .. we have to put ourselves in a position to guarantee at any time and against any enemy the safe development of our national effort! This is the statement of an ideal. Now we must see if we could put ourselves in such a position in practice.· .. our aeronautical budget should answer the following practical idea: "What is the minimum quantity of aerial forces needed to ensure the command of the air in our own sky?" After this minimum is ar· rived at, it should be increased by one-third. This is no practical basis for a budget, it is a poetic one. At least, that is the way any Finance Minister would look at it.· .. our defense should not be limited by the extent of our budget; but the budget should conform to the necessities of defense. This kind of thing may be practical for the United States of America, but certainly not for us. It is only poets who are not confined by the extent of their budgets. General Douhet is always worrying about budget limitations. He reasons very well as a military chief used to fighting for large enough appropriations to carry out his plans; but I reason like a businessman. During my professional career I have had the opportunity of carrying out several business deals, and I have found that the only thing that counts is whether the deal is good-that is, worth while. When the deal is worth while, the money is always found. Although I am not a business expert, I should like to point out that the end sought in business deals is the largest profit from the money and means invested. That is what counts practically. Practically it is necessary to get the highest return from the money and means invested. The businessman who does not give due attention to the amount of money available when he puts his best ideas in practice, usually succeeds in bankrupting himself. War is a business, like any other; it is the business of distribution. Even Recapitulation 237 in war one must try not to go bankrupt. It is always a question of budget. Italy can afford a Fiat; America can afford a Ford.1 The fact is as uncomfortable as the mythical shirt of Nessus, but one cannot get away...