Antwerp has the unfortunate distinction of being the most heavily bombed Belgian city in the nightmare known as World War II. The city was bombarded by both German and Allied airpower. The German Luftwaffe dropped an untold tonnage of bombs resulting in over 6,000 civilian casualties.
Allied planes followed with heavy bombing through the war trying to disrupt the German war economy. Both Germany and the Allies recognized the strategic importance of Antwerp. The port was vital to the support of both sides for shipping and naval operations. In a little- known chapter of Antwerp’s tragic experience, are the roles of a Hollywood icon and some of the captains of America’s industrial might. Consider…
Clark Gable (1901-1960) was an American actor often referred to as The King of Hollywood—- and for good reason. For three decades as a leading man, Gable appeared in more than 60 motion pictures: Mutiny on The Bounty (1935), It Happened One Night (1936), and Gone with The Wind (1939) were just a few of his award-winning credits.
After the death of his wife Carole Lombard (1942)—-and perhaps as part of his grieving process—Gable (at age 41) joined the United States Army Air Force. It was expected that he would be part of a public relations program designed to make movies for recruiting purposes. Clark Gable had other
ideas. He rose in the ranks to captain as an aerial gunner. In May of 1943, he set out on a mission to bomb the Ford and General Motors assembly plants outside of Antwerp. His squadron’s mission raises a few larger questions: Why would the American Air Force target American industries? Why were these icons of America’s industrial might in German-occupied Belgium at the height of World War II?
Any number of American companies had business dealings with Germany before AND during the war —-including, but especially, Ford and General Motors. The giant automaker Ford was well established in both Germany and Belgium and continued production even while the U.S.A declared war with the Axis Powers. This put Ford in a delicate position as it had operations on both sides of the conflict.
The tension between a private, stock-holders company and the United States government became palpable. Soon, it became obvious to America that Germany had “nationalized” (read: taken by force) the Ford plant. Equally important was the ignominious fact that the Germans was using forced prisoner of war labor to repurpose the manufacturing facility to support the Axis war effort. These facts alone put the Antwerp Ford plant in the cross hairs of Gable’s flight.
The case for bombing the Antwerp General Motors facility differed slightly. In 1938—just 18 months before the war began— a senior executive for General Motors received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle Award for the company’s distinguished service to the Reich. As late as 1939 and into 1940 General Motors senior management defended their German investment strategy as “highly profitable” and continuing production for the Nazi government was merely “ sound business practice.”
At one-point, General Motors Brandenburg’s Opel facility had produced bombers ,trucks ,jeeps, tanks, and land mines while Chief executive Alfred P. Sloan remained on the board. Sloan told shareholders that General Motors was “too big” and too immune” to be impeded by “petty international squabbles.”
By late 1941 public and governmental pressure became too intense to ignore. The Secretary of State Cordell Hull urged the FBI to investigate Ford and General Motors activities in Germany and Nazi occupied Belgium. It was not long into the war that Ford and General Motors rose to the occasion to create what President Roosevelt called the Arsenal of Democracy.
Morphing from automobile manufacturers to war implement suppliers, both companies leveraged their expertise in mass production to become the primary producers of armaments for the Allied war effort. Ford for example, transformed its production of cars to
aircraft in record time and at their production apex, was able to manufacture one B-24 bomber per hour. The company was able to retool their factories to churn out not only aircraft but tanks, jeeps, and specialized internal combustion engines. Ford’s ability to transform left little doubt in showcasing their support for the Allied war effort. Likewise, General Motors was able to streamline their assembly line process in record time.
From February 1942 to September 1945 General Motors had not produce a single civilian passenger car. Rather, they shifted their focus in an unprecedented scale to the production of military aircraft—-producing 190,000 planes in less than four years. In record time, General Motors engineers developed the state-of-the-art, turbo-charged V-12engine— which proved to be the most advanced aircraft engine to see action in World War II.
General Motors turnaround remains testament to their adaptability and efficiency and played a critical role in shaping the outcome of World War II.
The role of Ford Motors and General Motors during the conflict for example was confusing and complex chapter in American history. Clark Gable however was very clear- eyed in his sense of duty—-he would fly in over 30 combat missions and ultimately win the United States Distinguished Flying Cross Medal —an award for extraordinary achievement in aerial flight. You might say Ford ,General Motors
and Clark Gable collectively changed the trajectory of their paths and indeed ,rose to the occasion.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
Brussels Morning is a daily online newspaper based in Belgium. BM publishes unique and independent coverage on international and European affairs. With a Europe-wide perspective, BM covers policies and politics of the EU, significant Member State developments, and looks at the international agenda with a European perspective.
