Criticism by Giulio Douhet "air command" considered

Giulio Douchet was an artillery commander and general in the Italian Army in the 1920s, before that he had started journaling and reflecting on what he had learned in the army. In 1909 and 1910 he published his book on war strategy, rewrote parts of it, and a new version was presented in 1929. He is often considered one of the originators of air superiority theory. I’d like to discuss some of his theories and put things in the proper context here.

Okay, in response to Michael D. Pixley on his assessment of Giulio Douhet’s “Air Command,” based on Pixley’s article that appeared in the July 14, 2005 Air and Space Journal titled: “False Gospel for Airpower Strategy? A Fresh Look in Giulio Douhet’s ‘Command of the Air'”. -I must say that I agree with Michael D. Pixley’s comments, especially keeping Douhet in context, while reading “Command of the Air”-while reading, I also kept considering the reality of his environment at the time. of his writing. .

In fact, I also believe that it is unwise to project his works into the 21st century of air warfare, but we must read his work with all time periods in mind. Thus, Pixley may have lost something of value in Douhet’s work. I would say that Pixley needs to step back from his own mirror to see his broader life experience as he comments as well, and I will as well, by making the following comments;

First, I completely agree with Pixley’s assessment and comments about Douhet, and how Douhet’s ideas were borrowed and used at RAND to advise “Strategic Air Command” during the cold war. Even the name; “The Strategic Air Command” suggests the influence of Douchet’s work.

Still, Douchet’s work is interesting, as he makes some very valid points, he shares with us the story as he saw it from his point of view, and we can use his observations to strategize, but we must be aware that Douhet , as he talks about a component of battlefield air assets that had made significant mistakes regarding the use of “close air support” and precision strikes. You see, even a bird can shit on a red car that annoys it, as it flies by, and I know this from the car wash business.

So I wonder why Douhet, being so observant, didn’t pick up on any of it. Leonardo da Vinci with a similar training in the thought process would have, 100s of years earlier. Now, Pixley’s comments about Douhet’s morality and fascist thought process, along with his forceful comments about Douhet in general, seem to miss Douhet’s point by dismissing the problem of humanity for a purely analytical approach to win in a war, based on the “total war scenario”.

In fact, I think that Douhet was, sadly, probably haunted by the brutality of the war and therefore withdrawn and introspective, perhaps to help him explain the carnage he had witnessed, to rationalize it, and probably to avoid going mad. guess, just guess from Douhet’s writings.

Finally, I think Pixley gave a fair assessment of Douhet in the final paragraph of his brilliant essay, allowing the reader peace of mind studying Douhet’s observations, as long as they are within the context, time period, region, etc. . and scope of the day. Please consider all this and think about it.