- This topic has 7 voices and 28 replies.
-
Posts
-
How would we have gotten through the depression if we had never entered the war, or there would have been no war at all? How long would it have taken us and how do you think it would have been accomplished?
It would have lasted at least another decade, but the Depression would have ended once bust cycle and the agricultural situation in the Midwest subsided. But America's industrial might would have been far less if it never mobilized for war where factories were built for war production. Also women would not have entered the work force to double American output.
But America's industrial might would have been far less if it never mobilized for war where factories were built for war production.? Also women would not have entered the work force to double American output.
How do you think we would be faring in todays world economy without the war?
The field would be far more leveled as Europe would have remained economically vibrant and able to compete with us. Asia would have sufferered though as they would never have been able to find a place to carve out their own market presence.
The depression was basically over by the time the war started. The war simply accelerated the recovery and the economic gains made during the war translated into a longer period of prosperity afterwards. The notion that American entry into WWII ended the depression is a flase and pernicious myth in American Historiography. This myth, however suits some on the right who like to denigarte the achievements of the New Deal. I am not a big fan of the New Deal but it did what it was supposed to do. Many New Deals programs had ended by the start of the war and some have persisted. The basic facts are there though, The depression was over when the war started. A good argument can be made that Rearmament helped end it but that rests on shaky ground. America did not start seriously rearming until the latter half of 1940, long after employment had started to rise and the worst of the economic downturn was past.
So would you say that we would be at a point now, industrially and economically, that we were in say the 1970s?
So would you say that we would be at a point now, industrially and economically, that we were in say the 1970s?
I am not enough of an expert on economic matters to say for certain. I do know that industrially, our capabilities as a nation today are much less than 30 years ago. America is much more of a service economy now. Without extensive building and upgrading of plant, there is no way we could reproduce today what we did in WWII, we are no longer capable of being the arsenal of democracy. One point, in the 1940,s the US was a net exporter of oil, today we are the world's largest importer. We produce less than 20% of our oil needs domestically. That fact alone would hinder industrial production. The world runs more on oil today than ever before.
I am not enough of an expert on economic matters to say for certain. I do know that industrially, our capabilities as a nation today are much less than 30 years ago. America is much more of a service economy now. Without extensive building and upgrading of plant, there is no way we could reproduce today what we did in WWII, we are no longer capable of being the arsenal of democracy. One point, in the 1940,s the US was a net exporter of oil, today we are the world's largest importer. We produce less than 20% of our oil needs domestically. That fact alone would hinder industrial production. The world runs more on oil today than ever before.
Funny you mention these things, because there seem to be clear socio-political factors in play which have emasculated America's industrial and petroleum base. The first is the regulation on oil drilling both domestically and off-shore. The second is the power of unions in creating a less-competitive market for manufacturing in the U.S. I think that the U.S. could potentially regain an industrial base but it would take a dramatic policy and political effort.
I think that the U.S. could potentially regain an industrial base but it would take a dramatic policy and political effort.
I agree with you, but dramatic effort is an understatment. Policy and Organized Labor does indeed have a lot to do with it. The fact is though that Americas inductrial base has been whittled away over the years.I stand by my contention that the Depression was over by the time America entered WWII. In fact, the statistics I have seen point to the turning being in 1937 or early 1938. Some authors contend that the New Deal had very little to do with the turn around. the Great Depression was a global phenomenon and was not confined to the US. The US was actually not hit as hard as Europe was during the depression. Partly because the US was more market oriented than many of the economies of Europe.
If 9/11 taught us something on a social level, it's that cultural changes are possible in times of dire need. Now, 9/11 directly affected a relatively small number of Americans but it indirectly affected pretty much the entire population. Imagine if something of even greater proportion hit Americans. How would they respond? Environmental regulations and entrenched unions are the status quo in times of relative peace, but if "push comes to shove" and America needed to produce (say in a time of war) I think that the changes would be possible. But in our current situation this is not going to happen.
Unlike in WWII, in the current situation the average American is detached and does not feel as if the country is at war. The problem is that people are given two conflicting messages, 10 act like we are at peace, i.e. go on vacation, spend money and 20 we are at a nation at war, th eterrorists wnat to kill us all. These messages are mutually exclusive. I am not advocating a total war mentality, but the message needs to change somehow if we are to be successful in the current conflict. If not, I fear that society will eventually tear itself apart when faced with the competeing imperatives of fighting a war and partying on.
We definitely had already turned the corner by the beginning of World War II. You have to remember that we began supplying the Allies in 1939-40 before we even entered the war. Furthermore, you also have to recall that the Depression was felt in some regions of the nation more than others so you can't lump everyone into the same plight.As for the effectiveness of the New Deal, the jury is still out on how much good it did economically. The Tennessee Valley Authority was arguably a wonderful success as were the hydroelectric dam projects. Social Security was a great political move that did more to appease the masses than anything else, but in the long term, I don't think it should have been institutionalized as it has become....but we won't get into that here. 🙂 The WPA was another political maneuver that appeased the downtrodden more than it helped them get back on their feet....but it had never been tried before so I do not condemn FDR for pandering and tinkering here and there. I think if we ever have another Depression, it would be wiser to ride it out as Hoover wanted to do rather than dole out freebies and throw money at problems that are natural economic cycles.
But what about the popular persistence of the myth? Many people still believe that if it hadn't been for WWII the US would have been doomed to become a second rate economic power. I know my son was told that in school this past year, another of the many things I got into it over with his history teacher. I am certain by now that my son's history teacher cringed every time he heard my name, probably the school board too.I felt like the professor in the Narnia books. Reduced to shaking my head and muttering "What do they teach these children today?"
World War II simplified the world geo-political power structure from one of multi-polar powers (Germany, France, Britain, Russia, USA, and Japan) to basically two major powers (USA and Russia). America's political power would never have been as strong if it had to compete with that many world powers, but it's economic might would have grown regardless due to the thrift and Puritanical work ethic of its citizenry. World War II basically accelerated the trend that had already been established after the Civil War.
World War II simplified the world geo-political power structure from one of multi-polar powers (Germany, France, Britain, Russia, USA, and Japan) to basically two major powers (USA and Russia). America's political power would never have been as strong if it had to compete with that many world powers, but it's economic might would have grown regardless due to the thrift and Puritanical work ethic of its citizenry. World War II basically accelerated the trend that had already been established after the Civil War.
Even during the Cold War era the traditional European powers played a major role if nothing else as place counters like chips in poker. The countries of Europe played a vital role in determining the lines of the cold War and absent their consent to basing rights for US forces where would the confrontation have occurred? I don't think America was ever the 500 pound gorilla that traditionally she has been thought of. It is not simply preference that we prefer coalitions, it is necessity. America may have been the leader but democratic allies have always been crucial to American foreign policy.I agree that our economic might would have grown. But I don't know whether that could be translated into real political power the way that military might has been.The more I think about it, the more I begin to doubt whether the US could have defeated Russia immediately after WWII without going nuclear. Russia had all the advantages of being able to coercively mobilize their people that the US does not have.
