Talk:War Production Board

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Soviet penetration

This section is presented with giving any significance. Did these poeple somehow affect War Production in favor of the Soviets? Or? If the only point is to show that it had many spies, then we can do so in much less space. But I suspect that there is some tie-in that we should be mentioning. -Willmcw 19:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, agents of a foreign government, who owe their alligience to a foreign government, working within an agency of the United States Government, created in wartime, for the purpose of dealing with a national emergency, i.e. a war, one would presume to be of significance, if not to the media or the general prublic, at least to the people elected to run that government, and the resident career civil service. nobs 19:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should presume anything. If there's no evidence that they either disclosed secrets or subverted projects of the War Production Board then this should be a much smaller mention. -Willmcw 21:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Just click on their names and you can read about thier sins. nobs 21:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A) any mentions of WPB-related esionage should be copied here. I think I saw one. B) most of this info seems to be duplicated at Perlo group. -Willmcw 01:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Resumes

What are the significance of all of the jobs listed after each alleged Soviet spy? For example:

Greg Silvermaster, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury; Chief Economist, War Assets Administration; Director of the Labor Division, Farm Security Administration; Board of Economic Warfare; Reconstruction Finance Corporation Department of Commerce

These aren't all offices of the War Production Board, are they? -Willmcw 18:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The War Production Board was a temporary wartime agency set up of various overlapping departments; for example, Mr. Greg Silvermaster himself, whom you ask as an example, is an excellent example. Though he never was directly employed by the Treasury Dept, he worked within the Treasury Department building, in close proximity with other employees of the Treasury Department, and the historical archive record has him listed as "on loan" from the the United States Department of Agriculture. Many of the job lisitngs and titles are overlapping as well. Plus there is a problem of false statements being made on questionaires and job applications. As well as higher level infiltrators either giving promotions, recommending others for promotions, signing performance reviews, and recommending individiuals to other departments. nobs 18:58, 15 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since these aren't related to the War Production Board, I'm going to delete them. They may belong in the Perlo group artilce, which is the overview of this alleged spy ring. -Willmcw 21:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as to how the soviets and the US were allies during World WAr II, I find it hard to believe that soviet intervention set out to vandalize US wartime production... :|

Vandalism

This article was vandalised and blanked by 170.158.170.246 and 66.242.230.91 (although the latter may have been only attempting to remove the vandalism).

In 1942 President Roosevelt passed War Production Board (WPB) Limitation Order No. 208

that closed down almost all of the active gold mines in the United States. The emphasis during the war was on mining base metals and other strategic metals and minerals needed for the war effort. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155 (1958) United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co. No. 29 Argued January 7, 1958 Decided June 16, 1958 357 U.S. 155 Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. 134 Ct.Cl. 1, 130, 138 F.Supp. 281, 146 F.Supp. 476, reversed. Page 357 U. S. 156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.111.38 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War Finish on machine tools

WPB Order L-108 A couple of tags from machine tools http://jamesriser.com/Machinery/FrankenRiveter/Gorton3UWarFinishLabel3962.jpg http://cdn.stripersonline.com/d/d0/d05ba5bf_War_Finish.jpeg LeBlond had a painted on label, I have a 13" LeBlond 'trainer' lathe with the War Finish label but it's too bad of shape to make out anything beyond what it is, after being painted over then the paint peeled off. Lack of chrome or nickel plating, only rough grinding of non-critical surfaces, painting directly on the metal without any primer, no filler used to fill in casting defects and more reductions in the finish part of fit and finish to reduce costs and speed up production. Bizzybody (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article contradicts itself on establishment date

The lead of the article states that the War Production Board was established in January 1942. The infobox states August 1941. Which is correct? I've tagged them with {{contradictory}} to hopefully draw attention to this issue. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]