The Reorganization of U.S. Military Post-World War II: The Birth of the Modern Department of Defense

Even before the triumphant end of World War II, the U.S. military was already contemplating its post-war structure. This foresight led to the formation of a special committee by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a month prior to D-Day, dedicated to the reorganization of national defense. This committee, composed of flag and general officers from the Navy, Army, and Army Air Force, took 11 months to draft its recommendations. Their deliberations culminated in the pivotal National Security Act of 1947.

The National Security Act of 1947

The National Security Act of 1947 was a landmark in U.S. military history. It established the National Security Council (NSC), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and elevated the U.S. Air Force as a separate branch, thus creating three distinct military services: the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These branches were unified under what was initially called the National Military Establishment, later renamed the Department of Defense (DoD), with a single civilian Secretary of Defense at the helm. This restructuring aimed to foster a more integrated and efficient defense apparatus.

Concerns from Navy Leadership

The reorganization sparked significant concerns among top Navy leaders, including Admirals William D. Leahy, Ernest King, and Chester Nimitz. They worried that the new Secretary of Defense wielded excessive power, and the budget now operated on a zero-sum basis, which was a stark departure from the previous system where separate War and Navy Departments managed their own budgets. Nimitz, then Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), feared that the establishment of the U.S. Air Force might marginalize and jeopardize the future of U.S. naval aviation.

The Dawn of Nuclear Warfare

The conclusion of World War II with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki underscored the strategic importance of nuclear weapons. In the nascent Cold War era, the primary threat shifted to the Soviet Union, a burgeoning nuclear power. The newly formed U.S. Air Force advocated for a strategy centered on nuclear deterrence, proposing the B-36 bomber, which could strike targets across the globe from U.S. bases, as the lynchpin of this strategy.

Naval Countermeasures: Project 6A and the Super Carrier

In response to the Air Force’s burgeoning influence, the Navy developed its own nuclear strategy. Rear Admiral Daniel Gallery spearheaded a classified initiative, arguing that naval carriers could project power globally without the need for costly overseas bases. This led to Project 6A, which envisioned the construction of super carriers capable of deploying the Douglas A3D Skywarrior, a nuclear-capable aircraft.

The proposed super carriers required significantly larger flight decks and heavier displacement than existing carriers. The plan was to construct four of these super carriers between 1949 and 1952, aiming for operational readiness by 1955. The projected cost for the first super carrier was $189 million, which is approximately $1.7 billion in today’s dollars — a modest sum compared to modern Ford-class carriers costing upwards of $11 billion.

Budget Battles and Bureau of the Budget Opposition

Despite the strategic rationale, the high cost of the super carriers attracted scrutiny from the Bureau of the Budget. Director Jim Webb opposed the project due to its financial implications. In a bid to secure funding, Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan offered to cancel two other significant naval projects. However, the newly appointed Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson, who had close ties with President Truman, ultimately canceled the construction of the USS United States, the first super carrier, just days after its keel was laid.

The Revolt of the Admirals

The Navy’s discontent with the DoD’s direction and the cancellation of the USS United States culminated in what is known as the Revolt of the Admirals. This internal conflict saw senior naval officers openly criticize the Air Force’s dominance and the strategic direction of U.S. military policy. Rear Admiral Arthur Radford, among others, derided the B-36 bomber as a flawed and strategically myopic platform.

This dissent led to Congressional hearings where naval leaders aired their grievances, and the so-called “anonymous document,” which alleged corruption and inefficacy in the B-36 program, gained attention. The document, authored by an employee of the Navy’s OP-23 unit, became a focal point of controversy.

Congressional Hearings and the Aftermath

The Congressional hearings in 1949, known as the “Revolt of the Admirals,” exposed deep rifts within the U.S. military and led to significant political fallout. The hearings initially intended to investigate alleged irregularities in the procurement of the Air Force’s B-36 Peacemaker strategic bomber became a broader debate on military roles and budget allocation. Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Louis Denfeld’s testimony diverged sharply from the views of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) General Omar Bradley and Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson. Denfeld was critical of the Air Force’s emphasis on strategic bombing to the exclusion of other forms of warfare, and this disagreement led to his dismissal by President Truman. Secretary of the Navy Francis Matthews, who had called for restraint, was largely ignored by naval leadership. Despite the Navy’s vocal opposition, the hearings reaffirmed the Air Force’s strategic role in nuclear warfare but also highlighted the Navy’s critical contributions to U.S. defense, such as naval aviation and carrier operations.

Legacy and Impact

The Revolt of the Admirals had lasting implications for U.S. military policy and structure. One significant outcome was the establishment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a position first held by General Omar Bradley. This role was created to streamline military leadership and decision-making processes. Despite the turmoil, the Navy’s strategic initiatives eventually bore fruit. The development of ballistic missile submarines and the continued enhancement of aircraft carriers ensured the Navy’s integral role in both conventional and nuclear warfare. These advancements underscored the Navy’s adaptability and its strategic importance, even as inter-service rivalries persisted.

The controversies and debates of this period underscore the complexities of military innovation, inter-service rivalry, and the balancing act between strategic imperatives and budgetary constraints. The Navy’s advocacy for supercarriers capable of launching strategic bombers armed with nuclear weapons exemplified its strategic vision, despite resistance from other services and civilian leadership. Figures like Admirals Radford and Burke, and contentious projects such as the canceled supercarrier USS United States, reflect the dynamic and often contentious evolution of U.S. military strategy during the early Cold War era.

Conclusion

The post-World War II reorganization of the U.S. military was a transformative period marked by significant structural changes, strategic realignments, and intense inter-service rivalries. The National Security Act of 1947 laid the groundwork for the modern Department of Defense, while the ensuing debates and conflicts, epitomized by the Revolt of the Admirals, highlighted the challenges of adapting to new forms of warfare and maintaining a balanced and effective defense posture. The outcomes of these tumultuous years, including the establishment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Navy’s eventual strategic successes, continue to influence U.S. military strategy and organization to this day. The period’s legacy is a testament to the importance of inter-service cooperation, innovation in military technology, and the ongoing need to balance competing priorities within the defense budget.