The Impact Of World War One On The Homefront Social, Political And Economic Impacts
The First World War impacted significantly on the homefronts of the participating nations in many different social, political and economic areas. There was a widespread restructuring of primary industry with a large orientation towards militarism. There was massive political change where new systems of power were introduced that gave governments a range of new powers including the control over industry. The civilian population had severe restrictions placed upon their rights and liberties due to the necessities that total war required.
The scale of the war forced all sectors of society to change and adapt to the growing scale of the war. In 1914 the British government believed that the war would be a brief one and as a result there was little done to prepare for the eventuality of the war stretching out over as long a period of time as it did. As the war progressed and no major gains were made by either side it became clear that there would need to be a much greater war effort. In order to cope with the massive logistical effort required to keep the war going the governments introduced new laws and legislation to improve output, efficiency and control.
The Defence of the Realm Act that the British government introduced gave the government almost unlimited ability to control and regulate life for the citizens of Britain. It allowed for the censorship of anything deemed potentially damaging or could undermine the loyalty to the King, the process of recruitment, or economic confidence. Along with this the Munitions Of War Act was brought in making labour striking illegal in order to keep a smooth output of produce. There were masses of new taxes introduced to pay for the huge war costs. Income taxes were raised by over 20 percent by the end of the war, bank loans went up to help increase revenue and the majority of wages were lowered. As the war went on the agricultural resources of the allies began to get into short supply and as a result these food shortages were managed with limitations on the import, production and distribution of foods with sugar being banned in sweets in 1916 as it was needed elsewhere. Voluntary rationing on milk, sugar, tea and meat began in 1916 and became compulsory after April 1918
As a result prices for produce grown by farmers skyrocketed. Many farmers would sell their produce to the highest bidder meaning that the working class was the worst off. By 1917 the population was tiring of the war and its seeming lack of progress. The American resources that were provided at cost to the allies were a significant advantage for the allies as they could receive supplies from an outside source while they had blockades set up all around Germany, its allies and their ports.
In Germany a similar system to the one employed in...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
Foreign Direct Investment and it's impact, or lack of, on Russian political-economic reforms.3798 words - 15 pages Since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the new Russian Federation has had a tumultuous relationship with capitalism and foreign investment. It is not surprising that twelve years have past since the fall of communism in Russia and still there are structural problems within the Russian political and economic systems. Lack of political-economic precedent and reluctance for radical reform, from a top-heavy government; have inhibited the...
The Impact of World War One on America1614 words - 6 pages The Impact of World War One on America The Impact WW1 had on a number of countries was great, but what did it have on America, did they gain anything? Did they lose anything? That I what I will find out by looking at the American economy, the American armed forces and Americas society in general, these three topics will help me to find the answer to my question. ...
Italy Post-world war I and the political, social, economic structure.1600 words - 6 pages Jonathan ThenHistory 1000CEssay 3 (Midterm)Italy After World War I show how each of the following led to the rise of a dictatorship:a.Economic conditionsb.Weakness of parliamentary governmentc.Lack of democratic foundationd.Fear of communisme.Strong leadershipGiolitti's resignation in March 1914 a new government was formed by the more conservative Antonio Salandra. In June came...
The Social and Economic Impacts of The Black Plague1810 words - 7 pages The Black Death is considered to be "the most severe epidemic in human history" that decimated Europe from 1347 to 1351 (Witowski). Not only did the Black Death depopulate Europe, but it also had long lasting social and economic effects as well. The social effects consisting of culture, morals, values, and social norms. The economic effects consisting of labor, payment, and the foundation of feudalism. However one would call it, the Bubonic...
The Economic and Social Impacts of the Oklahoma City Thunder1121 words - 4 pages In overtime, behind and with little time on the clock Oklahoma City’s Russell Westbrook sinks an off balanced three and pushes the Thunder past the Golden State Warriors 113-112. This happened on November 29th, 2013 but 9 years prior this was all a dream of the people in Oklahoma City. It all started on August 29, 2005 when hurricane Katrina released hell on New Orleans. Most of New Orleans was destroyed by flood waters. This caused the New...
Employee Motivation The political, economic, social and technological environment all impinge on the effectiveness of business3979 words - 16 pages SummaryThis report has sought to identify the things that motivate staff at DK1 Dental Laboratory, as well as the things management need to consider to improve motivation in the organisation.It illustrates what motivation is and why it matters to workers at DK1. It looks at the effects that poor motivation is having on performance and profitability and the effects of leadership style on motivation and performance.The...
The Economic, Political, and Social Effects of the Black Death1265 words - 5 pages Imagine one half of the world's population by wiped out in a space of less than a ten years. You probably cannot imagine such an event occurring; it seems unreal. Yet, this very thing happened in the between the years 1347 and 1351 in Europe. This massive destruction of human life was known as the Black Death. This Black Death was an ecological...
The Economic Impact of the Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon734 words - 3 pages The Economic Impact of the Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon The effects of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are rippling throughout the world, by sector, by region, and by market. Bond markets, inside and outside the U.S., already jittery from a deceleration in worldwide economic activity, are struggling to find direction in the aftermath of the attack. There now seems little doubt that the U.S. and...
Political, Social, and Economic Causes of the American Revolution1428 words - 6 pages It is easy to interpret the American Revolution simply as a struggle for freedom. The magnanimous phrases of the Declaration of Independence have embedded in our hearts and minds glorious images of the Founding Fathers fighting for the natural rights of man. The American Revolution, however, also had a darker side to it, the side of self-interest and profit. The signers of the Declaration represented various classes – the working class, the...
Political and Economic Changes After the War of 1812730 words - 3 pages Andrew Jackson looked on toward a new democracy after his victory at New Orleans. The changes in this time period, after the war of 1812, would send America into a troubled future. The Post war political and economic changes would prove to be another stepping stone in America's evolving democracy. The political changes after the War of 1812 would redefine America's newly founded Democracy and contribute to a greater...
Evaluating the Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of Building the AswanDam3109 words - 12 pages Evaluating the Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of Building the AswanDam Introduction At 4,132 miles, the Nile River is the largest river in the world. It has its origins in Burundi, south of the equator, and flows northward through Uganda and into Sudan eventually flowing through Egypt and finally draining into the Mediterranean Sea. From Lake Victoria (its major source) to the Mediterranean Sea the...
The changes wrought in America during the First World War were so profound that one scholar has referred to "the Wilsonian Revolution in government."1Like other revolutions, it was preceded by an intellectual transformation, as the philosophy of progressivism came to dominate political discourse.2 Progressive notions — of the obsolescence of laissez-faire and of constitutionally limited government, the urgent need to "organize" society "scientifically," and the superiority of the collective over the individual — were propagated by the most influential sector of the intelligentsia and began to make inroads in the nation's political life.
As the war furnished Lenin with otherwise unavailable opportunities for realizing his program, so too, on a more modest level, it opened up prospects for American progressives that could never have existed in peacetime. The coterie of intellectuals around the New Republic discovered a heaven-sent chance to advance their agenda. John Dewey praised the "immense impetus to reorganization afforded by this war," while Walter Lippmann wrote: "We can dare to hope for things which we never dared to hope for in the past." The magazine itself rejoiced in the war's possibilities for broadening "social control … subordinating the individual to the group and the group to society," and advocated that the war be used "as a pretext to foist innovations upon the country."3
Woodrow Wilson's readiness to cast off traditional restraints on government power greatly facilitated the "foisting" of such "innovations." The result was a shrinking of American freedoms unrivaled since at least the War Between the States.
It is customary to distinguish "economic liberties" from "civil liberties." But since all rights are rooted in the right to property, starting with the basic right to self-ownership, this distinction is in the last analysis an artificial one.4 It is maintained here, however, for purposes of exposition.
As regards the economy, Robert Higgs, in his seminal work, Crisis and Leviathan, demonstrated the unprecedented changes in this period, amounting to an American version of Imperial Germany's Kriegssozialismus. Even before we entered the war, Congress passed the National Defense Act. It gave the president the authority, in time of war "or when war is imminent," to place orders with private firms which would "take precedence over all other orders and contracts." If the manufacturer refused to fill the order at a "reasonable price as determined by the Secretary of War," the government was "authorized to take immediate possession of any such plant [and] … to manufacture therein … such product or material as may be required"; the private owner, meanwhile, would be "deemed guilty of a felony."5
Once war was declared, state power grew at a dizzying pace. The Lever Act alone put Washington in charge of the production and distribution of all food and fuel in the United States.
By the time of the armistice, the government had taken over the ocean-shipping, railroad, telephone, and telegraph industries; commandeered hundreds of manufacturing plants; entered into massive enterprises on its own account in such varied departments as shipbuilding, wheat trading, and building construction; undertaken to lend huge sums to business directly or indirectly and to regulate the private issuance of securities; established official priorities for the use of transportation facilities, food, fuel, and many raw materials; fixed the prices of dozens of important commodities; intervened in hundreds of labor disputes; and conscripted millions of men for service in the armed forces.
Fatuously, Wilson conceded that the powers granted him "are very great, indeed, but they are no greater than it has proved necessary to lodge in the other Governments which are conducting this momentous war."6So, according to the president, the United States was simply following the lead of the Old World nations in leaping into war socialism.
Throngs of novice bureaucrats eager to staff the new agencies overran Washington. Many of them came from the progressive intelligentsia. "Never before had so many intellectuals and academicians swarmed into government to help plan, regulate, and mobilize the economic system" — among them Rexford Tugwell, later the key figure in the New Deal Brain Trust.7 Others who volunteered from the business sector harbored views no different from the statism of the professors. Bernard Baruch, Wall Street financier and now head of the War Industries Board, held that the free market was characterized by anarchy, confusion, and wild fluctuations. Baruch stressed the crucial distinction between consumer wants and consumer needs, making it clear who was authorized to decide which was which. When price controls in agriculture produced their inevitable distortions, Herbert Hoover, formerly a successful engineer and now food administrator of the United States, urged Wilson to institute overall price controls: "The only acceptable remedy [is] a general price-fixing power in yourself or in the Federal Trade Commission." Wilson submitted the appropriate legislation to Congress, which, however, rejected it.8
Ratification of the Income Tax Amendment in 1913 paved the way for a massive increase in taxation once America entered the war. Taxes for the lowest bracket tripled, from 2 to 6 percent, while for the highest bracket they went from a maximum of 13 percent to 77 percent. In 1916, less than half a million tax returns had been filed; in 1917, the number was nearly 3.5 million, a figure which doubled by 1920. This was in addition to increases in other federal taxes. Federal tax receipts "would never again be less than a sum five times greater than prewar levels."9
But even huge tax increases were not nearly enough to cover the costs of the war. Through the recently established Federal Reserve System, the government created new money to finance its stunning deficits, which by 1918 reached $1 billion a month — more than the total annual federal budget before the war. The debt, which had been less than $1 billion in 1915, rose to $25 billion in 1919. The number of civilian federal employees more than doubled, from 1916 to 1918, to 450,000. After the war, two-thirds of the new jobs were eliminated, leaving a "permanent net gain of 141,000 employees — a 30 percent 'rachet effect.'"10
Readers who might expect that such a colossal extension of state control provoked a fierce resistance from heroic leaders of big business will be sorely disappointed. Instead, businessmen welcomed government intrusions, which brought them guaranteed profits, a "riskless capitalism." Many were particularly happy with the War Finance Corporation, which provided loans for businesses deemed essential to the war effort. On the labor front, the government threw its weight behind union organizing and compulsory collective bargaining. In part, this was a reward to Samuel Gompers for his territorial fight against the nefarious IWW, the Industrial Workers of the World, which had ventured to condemn the war on behalf of the working people of the country.11
Of the First World War, Murray Rothbard wrote that it was "the critical watershed for the American business system … [a war-collectivism was established] which served as the model, the precedent, and the inspiration for state corporate capitalism for the remainder of the century."12 Many of the administrators and principal functionaries of the new agencies and bureaus reappeared a decade and a half later, when another crisis evoked another great surge of government activism. It should also not be forgotten that Franklin Roosevelt himself was present in Washington, as assistant secretary of the navy, an eager participant in the Wilsonian revolution.
The permanent effect of the war on the mentality of the American people, once famous for their devotion to private enterprise, was summed up by Jonathan Hughes:
The direct legacy of war — the dead, the debt, the inflation, the change in economic and social structure that comes from immense transfers of resources by taxation and money creation — these things are all obvious. What has not been so obvious has been the pervasive yet subtle change in our increasing acceptance of federal nonmarket control, and even our enthusiasm for it, as a result of the experience of war.13
Civil liberties fared no better in this war to make the world safe for democracy. In fact, "democracy" was already beginning to mean what it means today — the right of a government legitimized by formal majoritarian processes to dispose at will of the lives, liberty, and property of its subjects. Wilson sounded the keynote for the ruthless suppression of anyone who interfered with his war effort: "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way in this day of high resolution." His attorney general Thomas W. Gregory seconded the president, stating, of opponents of the war: "May God have mercy on them, for they need expect none from an outraged people and an avenging government."14
The Espionage Act of 1917, amended the next year by the addition of the Sedition Act, went far beyond punishing spies. Its real target was opinion. It was deployed particularly against socialists and critics of conscription.15 People were jailed for questioning the constitutionality of the draft and arrested for criticizing the Red Cross. A woman was prosecuted and convicted for telling a women's group that "the government is for the profiteers." A movie producer was sentenced to three years in prison for a film, The Spirit of '76, which was deemed anti-British. Eugene V. Debs, who had polled 900,000 votes in 1912 as presidential candidate of the Socialist Party, was sentenced to ten years in prison for criticizing the war at a rally of his party. Vigilantes attacked and on at least one occasion lynched antiwar dissenters. Citizens of German descent and even Lutheran ministers were harassed and spied on by their neighbors as well as by government agents.
The New York Times, then as now the mouthpiece of the powers that be, goaded the authorities to "make short work" of IWW "conspirators" who opposed the war, just as the same paper applauded Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia, for "doing his duty" in dismissing faculty members who opposed conscription. The public schools and the universities were turned into conduits for the government line. Postmaster General Albert Burleson censored and prohibited the circulation of newspapers critical of Wilson, the conduct of the war, or the Allies.16 The nation-wide campaign of repression was spurred on by the Committee on Public Information, headed by George Creel, the US government's first propaganda agency.
In the cases that reached the Supreme Court the prosecution of dissenters was upheld. It was the great liberal, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the majority decision confirming the conviction of a man who had questioned the constitutionality of the draft, as he did also in 1919, in the case of Debs, for his antiwar speech.17In the Second World War, the Supreme Court of the United States could not, for the life of it, discover anything in the Constitution that might prohibit the rounding up, transportation to the interior, and incarceration of American citizens simply because they were of Japanese descent. In the same way, the Justices, with Holmes leading the pack, now delivered up the civil liberties of the American people to Wilson and his lieutenants.18 Again, precedents were established that would further undermine the people's rights in the future. In the words of Bruce Porter, "Though much of the apparatus of wartime repression was dismantled after 1918, World War I left an altered balance of power between state and society that made future assertions of state sovereignty more feasible — beginning with the New Deal."19
We have all been made very familiar with the episode known as "McCarthyism," which, however, affected relatively few persons, many of whom were, in fact, Stalinists. Still, this alleged time of terror is endlessly rehashed in schools and media. In contrast, few even among educated Americans have ever heard of the shredding of civil liberties under Wilson's regime, which was far more intense and affected tens of thousands.
The worst and most obvious infringement of individual rights was conscription. Some wondered why, in the grand crusade against militarism, we were adopting the very emblem of militarism. The Speaker of the House Champ Clark (D-MO) remarked that "in the estimation of Missourians there is precious little difference between a conscript and a convict." The problem was that, while Congress had voted for Wilson's war, young American males voted with their feet against it. In the first ten days after the war declaration, only 4,355 men enlisted; in the next weeks, the War Department procured only one-sixth of the men required. Yet Wilson's program demanded that we ship a great army to France, so that American troops were sufficiently "blooded." Otherwise, at the end the president would lack the credentials to play his providential role among the victorious leaders. Ever the deceiver and self-deceiver, Wilson declared that the draft was "in no sense a conscription of the unwilling; it is, rather, selection from a nation which has volunteered in mass."20
Wilson, lover of peace and enemy of militarism and autocracy, had no intention of relinquishing the gains in state power once the war was over. He proposed postwar military training for all 18- and 19-year-old males and the creation of a great army and a navy equal to Britain's, and called for a peacetime sedition act.21
Two final episodes, one foreign and one domestic, epitomize the statecraft of Woodrow Wilson.
At the new League of Nations, there was pressure for a US "mandate" (colony) in Armenia, in the Caucasus. The idea appealed to Wilson; Armenia was exactly the sort of "distant dependency" which he had prized 20 years earlier, as conducive to "the greatly increased power" of the president. He sent a secret military mission to scout out the territory. But its report was equivocal, warning that such a mandate would place us in the middle of a centuries-old battleground of imperialism and war, and lead to serious complications with the new regime in Russia. The report was not released. Instead, in May 1920, Wilson requested authority from Congress to establish the mandate, but was turned down.22 It is interesting to contemplate the likely consequences of our Armenian mandate, comparable to the joy Britain had from its mandate in Palestine, only with constant friction and probable war with Soviet Russia thrown in.
In 1920, the United States — Wilson's United States — was the only nation involved in the World War that still refused a general amnesty to political prisoners.23 The most famous political prisoner in the country was the Socialist leader Eugene Debs. In June, 1918, Debs had addressed a Socialist gathering in Canton, Ohio, where he pilloried the war and the US government. There was no call to violence, nor did any violence ensue. A government stenographer took down the speech, and turned in a report to the federal authorities in Cleveland. Debs was indicted under the Sedition Act, tried, and condemned to ten years in federal prison.
In January, 1921, Debs was ailing and many feared for his life. Amazingly, it was Wilson's rampaging attorney general A. Mitchell Palmer himself who urged the president to commute Debs's sentence. Wilson wrote across the recommendation the single word, "Denied." He claimed that "while the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines, sniping, attacking, and denouncing them … he will never be pardoned during my administration."24 Actually, Debs had denounced not "the flower of American youth" but Wilson and the other war-makers who sent them to their deaths in France. It took Warren Harding, one of the "worst" American Presidents according to numerous polls of history professors, to pardon Debs, when Wilson, a "Near-Great," would have let him die a prisoner. Debs and 23 other jailed dissidents were freed on Christmas Day, 1921. To those who praised him for his clemency, Harding replied: "I couldn't do anything else.… Those fellows didn't mean any harm. It was a cruel punishment."25
An enduring aura of saintliness surrounds Woodrow Wilson, largely generated in the immediate post-World War II period, when his "martyrdom" was used as a club to beat any lingering isolationists. But even setting aside his role in bringing war to America, and his foolish and pathetic floundering at the peace conference — Wilson's crusade against freedom of speech and the market economy alone should be enough to condemn him in the eyes of any authentic liberal. Yet his incessant invocation of terms like "freedom" and "democracy" continues to mislead those who choose to listen to self-serving words rather than look to actions. What the peoples of the world had in store for them under the reign of Wilsonian "idealism" can best be judged by Wilson's conduct at home.
Walter Karp, a wise and well-versed student of American history, though not a professor, understood the deep meaning of the regime of Woodrow Wilson:
Today American children are taught in our schools that Wilson was one of our greatest Presidents. That is proof in itself that the American Republic has never recovered from the blow he inflicted on it.26
Subscribe to Our Mailing Lists