History That Doesn't Suck - 182: A Prologue to World War II: US Army Interwar Preparation

Episode Date: June 30, 2025

This is the story of interwar preparation–not that the United States realized it was preparing for World War II, new technologies, innovation, and a constant pushing of the limits in the 1930s did indeed help Uncle Sam prepare for the fight to come. To get us into an interwar mindset of praying for peace while preparing for war, Professor Jackson tells us the tale of the B-17 bomber and is then joined by GEN James E. Rainey, Commanding General, U.S. Army Futures Command, to discuss how the current day Army thinks about history to prepare for the future. In this informative conversation, GEN Rainey talks about the lessons, leaders, and innovations from the Army’s 250 years of service to the nation that can inform and inspire officers, soldiers, and leaders of all vocations to meet the missions of tomorrow. General James E. Rainey is the Commanding General Commander, Army Futures Command (AFC). Headquartered in Austin, Texas, AFC is the Army’s newest major command, responsible for transforming the Army to ensure war-winning future readiness, employing 30,000 Soldiers and Civilians at 128 locations worldwide. In his previous position, General Rainey served at the Pentagon, where he oversaw the Army’s operations and plans. General Rainey commissioned as an infantry lieutenant upon graduating from Eastern Kentucky University in 1987. He has commanded at every level from platoon to division and has served in numerous combat deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He earned a master’s degree in advanced military arts and science from the School of Advanced Military Studies and another in Public Administration from Troy University. He also completed a Senior Service Fellowship at the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Relations.  Disclosure: HTDS has not paid nor received any remuneration for this episode from the US Army or any other government agency. The opinions of the guest are his own and do not represent the opinions of Professor Jackson or HTDS. We are grateful to the many soldiers who have served our nation throughout history, and proud to bring discussions like this to the public in the spirit of education and access to the leaders in whom We the People place our trust. Books referenced in the interview: The official US Army field manual number one, “A Primer to our Profession of Arms” Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II by Arthur Herman Prodigal Soldiers: How the Generation of Officers Born of Vietnam Revolutionized the American Style of War by James Kitfield Real Soldiering: The US Army in the Aftermath of War, 1815-1980 by Brian McAllister Linn America's First Battles, 1776-1965 by Charles E. Heller (Editor), William A. Stofft (Editor) General Fox Conner: Pershing’s Chief of Operations and Eisenhower’s Mentor (Leadership in Action) by Steven Rabalais  Connect with us on HTDSpodcast.com and go deep into episode bibliographies and book recommendations join discussions in our Facebook community get news and discounts from The HTDS Gazette  come see a live show get HTDS merch or become an HTDS premium member for bonus episodes and other perks. HTDS is part of Audacy media network. Interested in advertising on the History That Doesn't Suck? Contact Audacyinc.com To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, what's up, Flies? This is David Spade. Dana Carvey. Look, I know we never actually left, but I'll just say it. We are back with another season of Fly on the Wall. Every episode, including ones with guests, will now be on video. Every Thursday, you'll hear us and see us chatting

with big-name celebrities. And every Monday, you're stuck with just me and Dana. We react to news, what's trending, viral clips. Follow and listen to Fly on the Wall everywhere you get your podcasts. And every Monday you're stuck with just me and Dana. We react to news, what's trending, viral clips. Follow and listen to Fly on the Wall, everywhere you get your podcasts. It's early in the morning, a bit past 9 a.m., Wednesday, October 30th, 1935.

Poyer P. Hill, or Pete as everyone knows this 41-year-old mustachioed Great War vet recently promoted to major, is doing his pre-flight check at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. But he's not alone in his cockpit. Pete's working with his crew of three fellow right field employees and Boeing's chief test pilot, Leslie or Les Tower. Les will be Pete's co-pilot once the five men take off inside this still experimental aircraft. Boeing's enormous 103 foot wingspan 15 ton bomber, model 299 or as it will later be designated by the Air Corps the B-17. But you know what Pete and his crew have their hands full. Let's leave them be

while I catch you up on all that's led to this upcoming test flight. First you might notice I said Army Air Corps not Army Air Service as it was known in the Great War. So what's going on there? Well, the best way to understand that is to reacquaint ourselves with Great War aviation commander, hero, and well-known thorn in the side of his superiors, Colonel Billy Mitchell. We first met Billy at the Battle of Samael in episode 137, and saw him clash with his superiors in episode 140. After the Great War, he was promoted to a Brigadier General and had his planes at the ready to suppress a Union uprising against mine owners

in West Virginia in 1921, which we saw back in episode 153. Yes, you remember Billy Mitchell, and the important thing here is that he's a staunch supporter of aviation and the armed forces and has long felt that they needed more independence. The Army Air Service's leaders, like Billy, were treated the same as tank or artillery commanders. Yet, the fiery flyboy argued that planes occupied a unique military function that was different from the Army or Navy. He proved his point on July 21, 1921, when his pilots dropped seven bombs on the captured

German battleship-turned-test target, the Aus Friesland. They sunk it to the bottom of the ocean. To Billy, this demonstrated that the air service needed to be its own military branch. Ah, but cost-cutting President Silent Cal Coolidge said no. Cutting government spending across the board, he justified his policy of further reducing the military's already massively reduced spending that we learned about following the Great War in Episode 150 with a simple question, who's going to fight us? But Billy was tenacious. Actually, he was downright belligerent, getting himself demoted and court-martialed despite many in Congress and the military being on his side. Sometimes it pays to know when to shut up,. That said, the head of the Air Service, General Mason Patrick, met Silent Cow's

budgetary concerns with a compromise that created the Army Air Corps in 1926 as a separate division of the Army rather than a separate branch. This meant they would now share a budget with the Army but get their own leadership and operations, kind of like how the Marines are a part of the Navy but operate entirely separately. This also meant that the Army Air Corps could carry out operations separately from ground troops, operations like bombing raids. And that's what brings us to the Model 299, or XB17, or YB17 to use this experimental Boeing aircraft's many designations through its pre-production development. Building on Billy Mitchell's proven bombing precision back in 1921, the idea is to make an aircraft that can

fly at long distances with a lot of bombs. Say 2,000 miles with 2,000 pounds of bombs at 200 miles per hour. Boeing took on the assignment last year, in September 1934, and after 153,000 man hours and $400,000, they were ready for a public reveal by July 1935. While Boeing calls it an aerial battle cruiser, the public prefers the newspaper's nickname, the Flying Fortress. On August 20th, 1935, Boeing's chief test pilot, Leslie Tower, yes one of the crew that we met at the start of this story, successfully flew the enormous armored

and armed plane 2,100 miles from Seattle, Washington to the Air Corps' training center at Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. That went well, and today, October 30, 1935, Les is with Air Corps test pilot Pete Hill, checking the whole experimental craft over, prepping for the next test flight. And things look good. So hey, let's get this fortress in the air. Things look good. So hey, let's get this fortress in the air. It's now 9.30 in the morning. Seated and ready for takeoff, Major Pete Hill pushes forward on the throttle, just as he has so many times before. The enormous flying fortress rumbles down the runway at right field. Inside, the crew feel the entire aircraft vibrate. Their ears ring from the growl of its four 700 plus horsepower engines and the roaring

roar of the propellers. Pete pulls up and lifts the sleek aluminum bird into the skies. Boeing's XV-17 has been nothing but a success thus far, so Pete and the flight crew have every reason to relax. But just then, the plane lurches left as the wing dips toward the ground, swinging the aircraft a full 180 degrees right back to where they took off from. And then it plummets straight toward the earth. On the ground, Lieutenants Leonard Harmon and Robert Giovinoli race as fast as they can

as the metal fortress plummets. It crashes and crumples right in front of them. Oh God, they've got to act fast. Two crewmen leap out of the aircraft on impact, but as Leonard and Robert arrive at the contorted plane, the gasoline in the punctured wings ignites. Within seconds, the ex-B is engulfed in flames. Leonard and Robert throw their coats over their heads and race into the wreckage.

Coughing and hacking as they choke on smoke, the two officers manage to pull the rest of the crew out of the metallic inferno. Despite severe burns, three of the men, remarkably, will recover. But while Les Tower holds on for three more weeks, he ultimately passes. As for Pete Hill, he succumbs to his injuries

in a matter of hours. A few years from now, in July, 1939, Utah's Hill Air Force Base will be named in Major Hill's memory. Meanwhile, both Boeing and the Army are sure that this crash means the end of the XB17. Indeed, some are calling it too much airplane for one man to handle. But a post-crash investigation finds no structural issues or malfunction with the engines.

The rudder and elevator controls were locked, causing the bomber to stall, and this loss of aerodynamic lift sent the mighty metal fortress careening back to the earth. Thus, despite this tragic event, the Army feels safe moving forward. It's a good thing too. Soon, growing tensions in Europe and Asia will provide a stern answer to Silent Cal's question of who's going to fight us. Boeing will crank out B-17s by the thousands and in turn these flying fortresses will take their bomb-dropping fight to the skies in the most total war humanity has ever waged. Welcome to History That Doesn't Suck. I'm your professor, Greg Jackson, and I'd like to tell you a story. As this episode comes out in June 2025, it does so shortly after the 250th birthday of the United States Army, which was established in June 1775 by the Second Continental Congress.

Since its founding in the American Revolution until today, the Army's motto has been, This Will Defend. And if you'd like to hear the full origin story from 250 years ago, just scroll down to HTDS episode six. We won't rehash that birth today, but it's worth briefly noting as we come to today's topic, which is the evolution of the US Army in the interwar period of the 1930s.

Think of this special episode as a prologue to where HTDS storytelling is headed next. World War II. In the late 1930s, the U.S. Army is totally unprepared for what Winston Churchill will later call the Gathering Storm. When Nazi Germany invades Poland in 1939, the U.S. Army is ranked a lowly 17th in the world, behind much smaller nations like Portugal. But within just a few remarkable years, the Army will echo its overnight overhaul during

the Great War, undergoing an awesome transformation. A transformation that was possible in no small part thanks to a mighty citizenry core of industry and science. That last part is key because even as the country is still reeling from the financial gut punch of the Great Depression, U.S. businesses are still building and innovating. You just heard one story of the Boeing Company's investment in developing the B-17 bomber. And remember those huge engineering projects we just finished exploring in recent episodes, including the government-sponsored Hoover Dam built by six companies?

Well, we're going to see how the 1930s innovation and industrial production foreshadowed what American industry could and would do when Uncle Sam calls on it during World War II. In fact, keep six companies in mind because that wasn't the last you'll hear about certain members of that conglomerate of builders. War is coming, and it's not only the army that will have to transform, it's the American home front too. The most consequential event in the 20th century is upon us.

To understand this historical moment better and to get us into the mindset of what generals from the period, like army chief of staff, George Marshall and others must have been thinking, I thought it'd be fun to have a discussion with a current US Army general. And my friends, you're in for a treat, because I'm pleased to have someone who is specifically charged with continuous transformation and preparation for the next major war. Even as we hope that, God willing, that war never comes. My guest today is General James E. Rainey, who leads

the U.S. Army Futures Command. Yes, he's got four stars on his shoulder straps. The mission of the Army Futures Command is to ensure war-winning future readiness, as its name suggests. The General has commanded at every level from platoon to division and has served in numerous combat deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan during his nearly four decades of service. His full bio is in the episode notes. As you'll hear, General Rainey and I not only discuss the U.S. Army's founding and transformation in interwar periods, we also discuss why it's important for military leaders to study history. And so, with no further ado, I'm pleased to welcome General

Jim Rainey to History That Doesn't Suck. Don't you love it when you find a new podcast you really like? Well, let me recommend one. It's called Something You Should Know. I'm Mike Carruthers, the host, and in every episode you'll hear fascinating information that will make your life better from top experts. Recently, we've done episodes on why you have the personality you do, the science of luck, and the psychology of a restaurant menu. You're going to like something you should know. We have literally thousands of five-star reviews. Look for something you

should know wherever you get your podcasts. So, General, why don't we go ahead and start with what does Army Futures Command do for the U.S. Army? Yeah. Hey, thanks. Appreciate that, Greg. And thanks for having me on. Army Futures Command is one of the major commands of the United States Army. We are primarily charged with transforming the Army to ensure war-winning future readiness. About eight

years ago, the Army decided to stand up a new four-star level major command, Army Command, we call them. The genesis of that was the complexity and difficulty of modernizing and transforming warranted a major command. We're the only service that took that approach. We already had a great organization, Army Training and Doctrine Command, that has a 50-year wonderful history of deliverance and excellence. A big, huge part of why our Army is what it is. We have Army Forces Command, which generates readiness. They own most of the Army and are responsible for getting units ready, trained and ready to go to war. Army Material Command, another one of our great teammates that owns an unbelievably complex

portfolio of generating and sustaining all the equipment, facilities, munitions that we have. Our piece of that mission is to transform the Army. We believe we're the best Army in the world right now, the best land force. making sure that statement is true in 2027, 2030, 2035 is why we stood up Army Futures Command. Army Transformation Initiative was just announced by the chief and the secretary of the Army. Largest transformation effort easily in the last 50 years, a generational type transformation across a wide portfolio, equipment and everything. As part of that, the Army is going to merge Army Futures Command and Army Training and

Doctrine Command into a new organization that will own the entirety of the process of manning, training, equipping soldiers from first handshake into first unit, be responsible for modernizing the force we have and developing the future force. So it's pretty exciting. So, could we say this is something of a lesson from the interwar period to never be an army that is not prepared for the next big challenge that might not be foreseeable. Yeah. Well, I'm super proud of the Army and the current leadership of the Army has got a clarity about how dangerous the world is right now and the clear understanding of the magnitude of the disruption that is happening in our profession and candidly has a risk tolerance that's commensurate with

the seriousness of the threat and they're taking bold action. So yeah, I think this is clearly based on the future of defending the Constitution of the United States, defending the homeland, and making sure that we never surrender that advantage we have as a country. You know, General, I don't know if you actually know this. The program I teach in at Utah Valley University is the National Security Program. I feel like we could go a very different direction in history right now, but I'm going to hold off on that.

We might need to schedule a redo. It's funny you say national security in some settings when I answer the what's AFC all about question, another people that are less familiar with the military or history, sometimes I describe it as figuring out the nexus between technology and national security. That is a big part of what we do a lot of other stuff. But in the future side of the Army and the AFC, that's really, you know, that we have the enemies in the world and threat is always, you know, geopolitics, demographics, global migration. The one that is most disruptive right now clearly is the speed of technological developments.

Well, let's go ahead and dive into history though. A point I'd like to jump onto actually comes from one of the official US Army manuals, A Primer to Our Profession of Arms. In this book, I understand that each of the chapters begins with a story, which of course, I love that approach. In fact, a number of my listeners would be familiar with World War I's at the, corporal, Alvin York. He's featured in there. Within the manual, if I can quote from its introduction, it says that, it is your task to look ahead to the future as well. Our army has an incredible history, but we are the most capable land force in the world

because of our ability and agility to meet the challenges of a changing world. So how does the Army use history as it's preparing soldiers to look to the future, to be ready to meet the challenges of the future? Yeah, that manual you're quoting from is Field Manual One, which we have a lot of doctrine in the Army. It's awesome. It's one of our strengths. That piece is interesting because it is personally written by the chief of staff of the army. He approves all the doctrine, but he's got the pen on that one. And if you're out there in the military or you're interested in your army,

that'd be the one manual I'd ask people to read because it's exactly that. It's why we have an army and what we owe our country and what it means to be a member of that profession. The fact that it's replete with history is indicative of the value we place on history as an army. To me, if you're trying to figure out the future, it's almost impossible. It's a worthy endeavor, but it's really about not getting it really wrong more than trying to get it right. It's very hard to predict the future as everybody knows. Personally, I believe taking advantage of everything that is knowable, so understanding the history deeply, which it's not 100% knowable, but it's in the 90s, especially if you're on a topic that's well researched, well written on, or some period of time that's well documented or humans that kept good memoirs.

Why would you not – it would be irresponsible professionally to not have a deep understanding of not just military history, but history in general. I love hearing you say that it would be irresponsible to not know the history. Yeah. It would absolutely be professionally irresponsible. I mean, history is – one of the reasons our Army is as good as it is is we invest heavily in military education, leader development, and our schools and education are replete with history. Our manuals – I'm sure you know this, but for our listeners out there, 250th birthday of your army, 14 June this year,

which is interesting. If you've ever seen the army flag, it's got 1775 on it. And one of the things we point out, not in a boastful way, but very proudly, is we had an army before we had a country. And the army put our country on its feet and kept it there. We're getting ready to celebrate 250 years of that. You show up for basic training in the Army, you're not going to go to bed that night before hearing some part of our history. Me personally, so I'm a little bigger headquarters. I don't have a giant staff, a dozen or so, but one of my most valued direct reports is a PhD in

military history. We have a wonderful young teammate on our team that is a school-trained professional library science archivist, you know, whose job is to make sure that we know what there is to know about topics that are important. So it's in our DNA and not just army history, but military history and the history of the world. Lessons to be learned regardless of what flag one's fighting under, right? You've said train for the known, educate for the unknown. I think you've kind of, even in those last comments, you articulate some of what you're

getting at, but would you mind kind of further expounding? How does education get to the unknown? Yeah, I do say that a lot. If you know you're gonna have to do something, we're very good at training for that task. But war has a funny thing of being incredibly unpredictable once it gets going. So, educating for the unknown is about learning how to learn. It's about being passionately curious. It's about being intellectually humble. How to think, not what to think. We have a huge advantage as the US Army and our number one thing that we focus on is our people.

So, we have an all-volunteer force, which comes at a much higher aptitude level, say, than Conscript. We're very proud of the fact that we have an all-volunteer force. We have a professional non-commissioned officer corps, and the time and energy we put into leader development for our leaders and commanders lets us do different things on the battlefield. We don't issue orders. Our soldiers don't sit around waiting to be told what to do. They make decisions. They follow orders, but in the absence of orders, they operate under the intent of the mission. That's something that is a superpower inside

a formation. It's underpinned by making sure that people know how to think and critically, that they're well-educated. Going back to history, if you're going to go somewhere and fight, you probably ought to know everything there is to know about the history of that place and people in that place. That usually brings you back to reading history. I'd love your reaction to this. My mind goes to George Washington trusting Nathaniel Green to basically just take care of the South, sends him down, this is you. My mind goes to Lincoln trying to find a commander that he could really trust. And it took a number of tries and Grant finally really worked out.

Pershing World War I, the man loved his rifles a little too much, but was able to turn the corner as tanks were coming in there at the end. I guess as all that goes through my mind, clearly there's a legacy in the US military of trusting people down the chain to be able to make some decisions. Do you think that there's a particular point where that really happened, or is that a George Washington example that has been pretty uniformly followed? Any thoughts? I have never thought through the origin of that idea. You can go back as far as the beginning of the United States Army and find that characteristic in great leaders, Gettysburg, Chamberlain

of Gettysburg. So I'd have to unpack that. I don't know if it's in our DNA. Our birth was like throwing off the yoke of people telling us what to do and being free. That's true, right? That might be the case. And I'm not just cheerleading them. There are people that have exercised initiative and made really big mistakes. Of course. And the ability to underwrite honest mistakes is something that fosters that kind of environment.

And, you know, we have people that don't practice it as well as others. I mean, we've all bumped into people that didn't get the memo about trusting people and tend to micromanage. But the ecosystem, you know, they don't do well in the army if they don't have the ability to trust and empower subordinates. Right. You know, Sherman and Grant, it's like the dudes were on a group chat every night, except for they couldn't talk to each other. You know?

I mean, you know, pre-continuous communication when it was a necessity to trust people, not just to make decisions in the absence of guidance, but to make the decisions you would have made if you were standing next to them. That's really the superpower. Right. Well, and then to, so I would imagine those beneath you in the chain when they make those decisions. Yeah.

Whether they actually turn out to be precisely what you would have wanted or not. Yeah. There's got to be a piece of that, right? Yeah. Whether they actually turn out to be precisely what you would have wanted or not. Yeah. There's got to be a piece of that, right? Yeah. I mean, you can delegate the authority to make a decision. You don't delegate the responsibility for the decision. So training and developing people to operate that way is in everybody's interest. I think about Washington who is, those of us who've studied the history know he's a

great leader. He's not the per se greatest general in terms of Battles won, but he's a man who knew how to learn from those losses and those who were underneath him were inspired by him. My friends, if you need a refresher on the leadership of the first commander in chief of the army, General George Washington, I invite you to check out HGDS Revolutionary War episodes, particularly number 8, which covers George's year of hard knock lessons on the battlefield in 1776. We'll be right back with more from my conversation with General Rainey after this short break. Let's talk about the interwar period.

Why don't we go there? Since that's where history that doesn't suck is currently at. I'll set it up a little bit. The army of the time has basically gone back to where it was pre-World War I in a number of ways. Before World War I, we were ranked the number 17th in the world. And we're back to that number 17th ranking as we hit the eve of World War II. Obviously night and day difference

from the 21st century US Army. And I imagine, well, it's my experience in the classroom, a lot of my students, they do not grasp that the world they know in which the United States is this top military, the way it's been their entire lives, that's only been since World War II and on, that we've continuously been in that space. What would you say are the biggest, you know, distinctions or lessons, things that you would pull out of the 20s and 30s? And I should have done a safety briefing up front. I am a

passionate consumer of history. I'm not a certified professional historian. I'm an infantry officer by trade. I've always loved history and I read voraciously and have always used it to kind of, you know, catch up for gaps in my education before I came to value it later in life. But that's how a lot of people go. That's all right, General. So I'll answer your question, but a little bit different. So interwar periods. So if you're trying to figure out the future and how to transform an army, how to build an army, which has been not just my job now, but a couple of the last jobs I've had have

been primarily that. I believe the most informative periods to study are in fact the interwar periods. You know, adaption in combat, there's lots of things that happened during the wars, but the most interesting, useful, informative periods of time, in my opinion, are in fact the times in between wars and what our army did. Two of them come to mind, the period between World War I and World War II, and really the 30s, late 30s, if you're trying to hone in. I don't want to name drop a whole bunch of books, but there's a great book called Freedom's Forge that's the story of how the United States brought its industrial might to bear.

We knew the war was coming before the war. Roosevelt, Knutson, captains of industry, which is as much responsible for us winning the war as anything else. How we did that is kind of interesting now because what are we talking about now? The defense industrial base, the American industrial base, can we rapidly manufacture? Could we move to a war footing? There's a lot to be said. Then the other one is as the United States came out of Vietnam up to Desert Storm and

then to Desert Storm to OIF-1 type timeframe. Which, to define that that is 1990 Desert Storm or the First Iraq War to the 1999 NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia known as Operation Allied Force or OAF-1. So how do we take an army coming out of a dark, dark period and turn it into the premier fighting force, modernized our people, our equipment, move to an all volunteer force?

So books like Prodigal Soldier, Real Soldering, modernized our people, our equipment, moved to an all-volunteer force. Books like Prodigal Soldier, Real Soldering, there's a couple of great pieces in there. We'll add links to those books in the episode notes for listeners. Then studying the leaders, because every successful modernization transformation effort that I'm aware of, you can associate it with a human being. So throwing around terms and organizations and industry did this and Congress did that, military did that, is less useful than Admiral Rick over John Boyd, Oppenheimer. I mean, the humans who did it and studying them. So I don't know if that answers your question, but I didn't know you're

currently in an interwar period phase, but that's a good place to be, I think. Well, if I can maybe drill down just a little bit more on that, we've just done a number of episodes on the Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, a lot of infrastructure that's being built despite the fact that we're in the depths of the Great Depression. And as you know, as my listeners will soon be hearing, the arsenal of democracy, to quote FDR, is a major component of the United States, you know, of the Allies winning World War II. I'm not in the habit of quoting Joseph Stalin on the regular, but, you know, he, I believe

he said, what was it? The war was won by British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood. And I always kind of took the brawn to mean really American industry. So this arsenal of democracy, right? These companies in the US that are cranking out just incredible numbers of planes, tanks, you name it.

We're not only arming the United States, we're arming our allies. In fact, my grandfather, Grandpa Jackson, he was in the Persian command during World War II. He spent the war moving US war material up to our then Russian allies. So this stuff, it hits home for me even. Is there anything in particular about all that production in the 30s that you either find particularly interesting or you think about in terms of the present? Absolutely. So, it starts with the president realizing we weren't at war, but it was indications

and warnings. It was crystal clear there was a sense of urgency. Congress supporting the president's efforts with money, right? Because that matters. But the big thing to me is these companies that did that were not defense, you know, they weren't, there wasn't a big defense prime industry. They were the great companies, Ford Motor Company, GM, Goodyear. They just bent that capacity to a war footing and were able to give way together the unity of effort across the country to do that. There's people that, we have more of a service-based economy versus the manufacturing-based economy

we had now. There's a lot of talk about manufacturing capacity, human capital. I'm a little more optimistic on American people in time of crisis. It would not be smart to underestimate America's ability to do something if it was existential. I don't think there's a limit on what we could do. The materials, stockpile materials, can you do it? The amount of sanctuary they had, we weren't fighting in the continental United States. That may or may not be true next time we fight, depending on who we're fighting. So it's a complicated problem. The big takeaway is they got going. They didn't wait until the war started. It was early leaning into it. Hence, future's command, thinking about what's coming.

Yeah. Yeah. It's not just future's command. I mean, thinking about what's coming. Yeah. Yeah, it's not just futures command. I mean, the Army's crystal clear. I mean, going back to the Army Transformation Initiative, it's really about a big giant part of it is looking at the things we have and that we were planning on buying and saying, okay, these aren't the things we're going to need based on the changes over the last 24 months in warfare and stopping spending. We take very seriously the stewardship of the resources we're given

by the taxpayers and by Congress. So with the money we have, we got to buy different things. We got to buy them faster. We got to buy them differently. And to do that, we got to free up some money. So there's a clear sense of urgency and understanding that getting going. There's a great book, America's First Battles. I'm sure you've read it. We kind of got a track record in the US of not having a great entry into conflict. The first fights don't go great. Our superpower has always been, okay, didn't go great.

What do we learn, what do we need to do, fix it, fix it, and then counterattack. You can call it an assumption, I would say it is a fact, but it's at least a pretty really, really solid assumption is there's not going to be a chapter of that book about losing the first fight in the next war and then recovering from it. We are not going to have that luxury. And even if we did, we don't believe in sacrificing our most valuable talent to learn some lesson that was knowable. So the whole point to me of that period of time is the whole country, the whole military, the whole army needs to be doing everything we can at the fastest possible speed

to continue to deter our enemies, to prevent a war that nobody wants. But if it happens, we're going to have to win fast. So General, let's go ahead and lean into that a little bit. We've talked some history, as I said, I do teach this national security program and you've really got my interest peak now. I want to take advantage of your mind a little bit while I've got you. If in the 30s it was about production and not that that won't be and isn't a component in the 21st century, what do you think are perhaps things that won't be and isn't a component in the 21st century. What do you think are perhaps things

that maybe the general public isn't seeing or kind of taking for granted that we need to be worried about? Or is that AI perhaps? Or what are those unknown variables that to get back to your philosophy, right? Train on what you know and educate for the unknown. What should we be looking at right now?

Well, for our citizens of which we are all part of, the importance of service. If you look at the history of our country, it has been replete with the idea that we're very, very privileged to live here and that freedom is not guaranteed. It's every generation to every generation, the responsibility to pass it on. And we have an incredible privilege of living in the freest country in the world. And that's underpinned by the idea that people should do something with their life that is of value beyond just them. It doesn't mean everybody has to put on a uniform, it's not for everybody.

Serving in your community, coaching sports, teaching public school, being in law, first responder law enforcement, nursing, small business, job creation. That is something I would, I'm not sure that everybody as busy as we all are understands that the idea that doing something with your life that is bigger than you and helping your fellow citizens is a gigantic part of us having what we have. That's a little more ethereal. But, yeah, and supporting the men and women who do serve, which is very good. I think on the more technical thing is the world is changing at an unprecedented pace, to state the obvious, but in the term of the military, we are probably at the most disruptive period of time in the history of military affairs. The closest I could come would be that pre-World War II, people were inventing

tanks and airplanes and radios. There'd been some smokeless powder and the railroad, the telegraph, precision munitions more recently. There've been some giant revolutions in the history of warfare, but we are absolutely in the midst of one right now. And what's different this time is there's no... All those times, it was about a big disruption, and then people figured it out, and then boom. This one is unknowable. I mean, no one is ever going to wake up and go, okay, I figured out the UAV problem, or I figured out autonomy, or okay, we're good on AI for the next decade. I mean, it is a perpetual—so the disruption is unprecedented in terms of magnitude, but

more concerning is it appears to be constant and with no end in sight. So paying attention to what happens with AI, whether you're government officials or citizens or in the business world or in the military world. So the nexus of AI and synthetic biology, agentic AI and humanoid robots. I don't know what's going to happen, but the best AI people I know that I talk to, I think are the best in the country, will tell you, we're like six months at a time figuring this out. The Moore's Law for AI appears to be in the, it's doubling in capability with no insight. Yeah. We are recording this in 2025. And as you pointed out, this is the 250th anniversary of the Army. We're also 80 years out from World War II. Both of these significant

milestones, anniversaries, are they resonating within the ranks? What's the Army doing to reflect upon? Yeah. Well, I just got a note from one of our great division commanders, Dave Gardner, who's commanding the 101st. he's over in Normandy right now celebrating the 81st anniversary. I mean, I will note we are two days away from D-Day. That makes perfect sense, yeah, as of the time of this recording. Yeah. And I think, you know, you could never pick the one point in the history of the Army

that was the highlight, you know, we're a highlight reel, we keep America free for 250 years. But that's up there. The greatest generation, the leaders, not just the famous generals, but Dick Winters and Audie Murphy's. I mean, it is replete with citizen soldiers through professional soldiers, NCOs, volunteers, draftees, men, women. You would be hard pressed to find a finer example of the United States of America manifested victory in World War II. The 250th birthday is, you know, more cowbell on that, 250 years. And we're very, very proud of that in the

Army. We fight as a joint force. We don't compete with the other services. We don't compete with other great institutions. We're just proud of being the dominant land force in the world with all of our joint teammates. But 250 years of excellence. We've been big, down, good, bad, but steady, constant. This we'll defend. That's our motto, right? So, we believe in the Constitution. We swear an oath to the Constitution.

In our recent history, it's 100% volunteers doing that on behalf of their fellow citizens. So, yeah, we got a fair amount of pride about that. Absolutely. I could talk for hours on the interwar period, the way you can take a guy like Foxconn or I don't know if you're familiar with who mentored the World War II generals and, you know, Marshall and Eisenhower's relationship, you know, that everybody thinks was just in combat. Yes, General Conner was part of Black Jack Pershing's staff in World War I. You know, reading

about how that manifested itself so. Right. I say all that to say we take mentoring and you know as you get older in this profession the responsibility to pass that on is something you know we take real seriously so this has been more of an opportunity for me than something is so I appreciate you guys. Well thank you really. I, thank you, really. I hope everybody in America takes a minute to celebrate our great Army's birthday and reflect on the privilege of living in this country guaranteed by our military. Well said. Thank you.

Well, my friends, with that, HGDS salutes all who have served and a special thanks to General Rainey's staff for arranging this interview, including Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Dobson and Captain Nick Beavers. If you enjoyed this conversation a lot more, I invite you to check out the HGDS membership program. Right now you can hear a bonus story about Fox Connor, whom General Rainey referenced as an important mentor to George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, and other pivotal leaders we'll encounter in upcoming World War II narrative episodes of HGDS. HGDS members get extra stories like this one and can listen to all episodes ad-free on the most popular podcast apps like Spotify and Apple.

Sign up for a free 7-day trial at hgdspodcast.com slash members or click the link in the episode notes. History That Doesn't Suck is created and hosted by me, Greg Jackson. Episode produced by Dawson McCroth with writing and research assistance by Will King and Ella Engelsen. Production by Airship. Sound design by Molly Bach. Theme music composed by Greg Jackson.

Arrangement and additional composition by Lindsey Graham of Airship. For a bibliography of all primary and secondary sources consulted in writing this episode, visit https.podcast.com slash members or click the link in the episode notes. History That Doesn't Suck is created and hosted by me, Greg Jackson. Episode produced by Dawson McCroth with writing and research assistance by Will King and Ella Engelsen. Production by Airship. Sound design by Molly Bach. Theme music composed by Greg Jackson, arrangement and additional composition by Lindsey Graham of Airship. For bibliography of all primary and secondary sources consulted and writing this episode, visit https.podcast.com. HTTPS is supported by fans at https.podcast.com. My gratitude to you kind souls provide funding to help us keep going.

Thank you. And special thanks to our patrons, whose monthly gift puts them at producer status. Sedlak, Harry Begold, Charles Klandinden, Carly Mages, Boie Tripp, Christopher Merchant, Christopher Pullman, Colleen Martin, Dan Gee, David Dee, MeBrush, David Rifkin, Durante Spencer, Donald Moore, Chilliado, Elizabeth Chris Janssen, Ellen Stewart, Ernie Lomaster, G2303, Harry Spell, George Sherwood, Gareth Griffin, Henry Brunjes, Paulie Hamilton, Jake Gilbreth, James Bledsoe, James Blu, Jamie Crere, Jeff Marks, Jeffrey Moose, Jennifer Ruth, Jessica Poppock, Joe Dovis, Don Booby, John Frugal Doogle, John Keller, John Messmer, Don Olibaros, Don Aradlewicz, Don Schaeffer, Jonathan Schaep, Jonathan Turrell, Jordan Corbett, Joshua Steiner, Dustin M. Spriggs, Dustin May, Karen Bartholden, Karl Friedman,

Penn Colver, Kim R, Kim Reninger, Kristen Pratt, Kyle Decker, L. Paul Goeringer, Lawrence Neubauer, Linda Cunningham, Mark Ellis, Matt Siegel, Mel Cascio, Melanie Jan, Mike Sekander, Nick Capral, Noah Hoff, Owen W. Sedla, Reese Humphreys-Wadsworthadsworth Rick Brown Robert Drazovich Rock day Salah Santa Sarah Trey with Sarah and peace and Sean Baines Stacy Ritter Steve Williams keep the girl Thomas Churchill on the Sabbath and Sarah Turner on the staff the Zach Green is at Jackson going me two weeks where I'd like to tell you a story