Spencer Yamada, Brigham Young University
Humanities
This project is designed to use the actions of the US military in response to American civilians advocating for direct military intervention in the holocaust as a case study to apply the economic Theory of Disruption. The complex situation during the war, involving Anti-Semitism, technical challenges, political motives and military bureaucracy has traditionally been impossible to untangle. Existing theories of management and economics were applied using their data-proven ability to understand human behavior. Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School developed the Theory of Disruption to describe the process by which companies are able to innovate, grow, and conversely stall and fail. Christensen found that large companies that had traditionally been innovative and successful had become so by bringing new products to new markets that had been previously ignored. Christensen noted that the world’s most successful corporations had changed dramatically overtime by initiating self-disruption and changing focus from what has traditionally been successful for them to smaller new markets and new products. The Allied purpose during the Second World War was centered on one key policy decided at the Bermuda Conference in 1943, which was to defeat Nazi Germany. Around the same time groups of both Gentile and Jews began clamoring for a new strategy involving the bombing of Auschwitz as reports of the camps reached the American public. The American Military did not produce the product this small market demanded, acting in the same way a large corporation would that failed to initiate the process of disruption and took no action against any holocaust targets. Christensen’s Theory of Disruption explains of this phenomenon as a function of economic forces and organizational behavior.