- This topic has 7 voices and 28 replies.
-
Posts
-
The Russians would have gone hungry if it had not been for our Spam. Funny as it sounds, but the Russians literally could not feed their army without major imports of U.S. foodstuffs. All we would have done is cut off their food supply and wore them down. We had air superiority too.
Don't discount the ruthlessness of the Russians. They were quite willing to see millions of their own citizens starve if it made the difference between victory and defeat.
The depression was basically over by the time the war started....The notion that American entry into WWII ended the depression is a flase and pernicious myth in American Historiography....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.
My parents and, of course, grandparents lived through the Great Depression. You'd never convience them the Depression ended before WWII. (One grandfather worked on WPA projects. He didn't talk about it much because--it seemed to me--life was so hard then he even found discussing those years to be painful.)
The depression was basically over by the time the war started....The notion that American entry into WWII ended the depression is a flase and pernicious myth in American Historiography....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.
My parents and, of course, grandparents lived through the Great Depression. You'd never convience them the Depression ended before WWII. (One grandfather worked on WPA projects. He didn't talk about it much because--it seemed to me--life was so hard then he even found discussing those years to be painful.)
You probably could not convince my grandparents either, but that does not alter the facts. There are many people who dont believe the holocaust happened despite the proof, does that mean I am obligated to give weight to their arguments no matter how much the facts dispute them?
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.
We not only fed the USSR, but provided trucks (Studebakers galore), plus aircraft, etc to Uncle Joe...Sure, in 1946-1947 the Red Army could have crushed the Army of Occupation in Europe like a grape....but with the assurance of Moscow turning into a radioactive slag heap....OTOH...and this is a biggie....the premise here is is either no WWII or no US involvement in WWII...so if WWII never happened, or the European war did but the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor/US territories and therefore no US involvement, I doubt that the US would have spent the big big $$$ on the Manhattan Project...So if it came down to just the British and the Soviets...good chance that the Nazis would still be in power in Western Europe....the Soviets and Nazis "may" have come to some sort of accord, with Poland as a buffer, and the UK as "neutral" power, albeit with the loss of Empire...which happened post-war anyway....
You probably could not convince my grandparents either, but that does not alter the facts. There are many people who dont believe the holocaust happened despite the proof, does that mean I am obligated to give weight to their arguments no matter how much the facts dispute them?
First, I don't quite think that holocaust denial is anywhere near the same level as denying economic recovery. Second, you mentioned that "statistics I have seen point to the turning being in 1937 or early 1938", and this points to technical reasons why the GD may have ended and is experienced on a macroeconomic scale. I haven't studied the economy of this time so I'm not sure if what you mean by "turn around" simply means "having already hit bottom and coming up" or "economy roaring full speed ahead". Whichever the case - and I believe what you are saying here - this would be more of a statistical event which might not be felt by individuals at the microeconomic level, especially at the first stages of "turning the corner". Economic cycles can take years to play out, so even if the economy was expanding as early as 1937 it might not have translated into tangible realities for many Americans for a few more years. I think this is what Daniel was referring to - the local experiences of his relatives who may have remained in poverty even after the Depression had technically already ended.
Thank you Phidippides. That's what I meant.As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, **** lies, and statistics." While statistically things in 1938 might have been better than they were in 1934 that doesn?t mean the Great Depression was over. They way my grandparents saw things the Depression was a period when they and their neighbors didn?t have jobs and couldn't make ends meet. They and their neighbors didn't have jobs in 1938; they got jobs when WWII came along.My father talks of the first thing teachers did when school started was ask, "Who didn't have something to eat yesterday?" and then take those who answered 'yes' to get a bowl of soup. Also how they'd sit around in the dark to save electricity.If you want to talk about people being in denial I'd say the people in denial are those who claim the Great Depression was over when people were still going to bed hungry; and in 1938 people were still going to bed without dinner. Frankly I think my grandparent's definition of the Depression is superior to that used by those who say the Depression was over in 1938; IMHO an empty stomach trumps "the facts" anytime.
Daniel, I am not arguing emotion. I am arguing the staistics, which you are correct in pointing out dont have empty stomachs. I cannot speak for your Grandparents or mine, I only know what the numbers show, and they show that the economy had begun to grow again by 1937 or 1938, that is when the economic contraction ended for good and the economy began steady growth without excess deficit spending by the government. See the following table found at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
Tax Federal GNP Unemp.Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.71931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.91932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.61933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.71935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.11936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.91937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May 1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2While I will agree that 17% unemployment is high it is not excessive. Look at Europe in the last 10 years or so or Asia in the same time frame. I have not argued that WWII did not benefit the economy, I have simply said that WWII did not end the Depression as popular myth would have it.
First, I don't quite think that holocaust denial is anywhere near the same level as denying economic recovery.
I am not equating the two, it was simply the example of denial despite facts that jumped to mind.
While I will agree that 17% unemployment is high it is not excessive.
Then why are 1930 and 1931 Depression years. Their unemployment rates (8.7 % and 15.9%) are well below the 17.2% of 1939.
Because they are the years during the which the economy was still in contraction. You must have noticed the downward spiral bottoming out in 1933 and then reversing itself with a hiccup in 1937-38?
That site you linked to has some interesting numbers. I think I would have to read the book you are referring to put it all in perspective. Based on the stats along, GNP growth and unemployment numbers were worse in 1939 compared to 1936. If the GD had ended by '37 or '38, it must have been other economic indicators that reveal this. That said, the fact that high unemployment continued until the war (the figures end at 1939) suggest that for the commoner there probably wouldn't have been much noticeable difference between the end of the Depression and beginning of recovery in '37 or '38. Perhaps there would have been a greater difference between '35 and '36 when the New Deal went into effect. One thing that is striking about that table of figures during the GD is the tax receipts that increased 5-fold between the early 1930s and 1945. It's basically a view that has continued to this day - high government spending anchored in the idea that the government is the provider and enabler.
One thing that is striking about that table of figures during the GD is the tax receipts that increased 5-fold between the early 1930s and 1945. It's basically a view that has continued to this day - high government spending anchored in the idea that the government is the provider and enabler.
I completely agree that the high level of government spending is a legacy of the New Deal. I couldn't find or couldn't figure out how to get the unemployment for the WWII era out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. I do know that by 1940, in the middle of rearmament the US was at virtual full employment. It helped that so many men were being drafted into the military as well. I have not argued with the notion that there was little effect to the common man, this feeds the perception that WWII led the US out of the Depression. Some of the key numbers I have seen are the level of consumer spending and durable goods orders, both began to rise after the second half of 1938. As the current downturn and the '80's demonstrate, it takes awhile for an economic recovery to percolate down to the average citizen. By the same token, it takes awhile for the effects of a downturn to be widely felt as well.
Scout1067 posted above: 1--the Great Drepression ended in 1939 2--that WWII didn't end the Great Depression. I must respectfully respond: I don't buy it. IMHO "the facts" support the "popular myth" that WWII ended the Great Depression. So let's look at some facts:World War II started in 1939 when Germany invaided Poland. If the Depression did end the same year WWII began it is too much for me to accept as being anything other than cause and effect.I think, however, it is wrong to conclude that (1) the Depression ended in 1939 and (2) that something other than WWII ended the Depression. Here's why:The text on the website scout1067 cites (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm) states regarding 1939:The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities. ?Is ending? is very different from ?is over.? Also the comment is about the worldwide recession, and thus is not necessarily applicable to the U.S. recession. I also note it says regarding 1939:"The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces."Please note:1--It says "will begin emerging from the Depression"2--The cause it gives is spending for WWII armed forces Yes, in 1939 industrial output improved. That perhaps marked the beginning of the recovery, not the end of Great Depression. (The Dow Jones Average did not reach pre-1929 levels again until 1954.) Improved output was a direct result of WWII, which also started in 1939.The Great Depression was first and foremost about unemployment. Before the Great Depression unemployment was under 5%. It was not until 1942--after Pearl Harbor--that unemployment dropped to under 5%. (The 1939 unemployment rate of 17% shows the Great Depression was far from over in 1939.)Year Unemployment 1928 4.2%1929 3.2%1930 8.7%1931 15.9%1932 23.6%1933 24.9%1934 21.7%1935 20.1%1936 16.9%1937 14.3%1938 19.0%1939 17.2%1940 14.6%1941 9.9%1942 4.7%1943 1.9%I submit that while the recovery may have begun in 1939, the Great Depression did not end in 1939. (To me it is ludicrous to say a nation with 17% unemploment isn't in the midst of a depression.) I also submit "the facts" very much support the "popular myth" it was WWII that ended the Great Depression since unemployment levels did not reach pre-Depression levels until after the U.S became a WWII belligerent.
I guess I would have to say that you are right if Unemployment numbers are the only indicators of a nations economic health. The next sticking point becomes, to which beginning for WWII do you refer. The conventional date for the start of the war in Europe is 1 Sep 1941. The US did not become formally involved until December 1941. Some historians date the war's start to the early 30's and japan's invasion of Manchuria. Niall Ferguson claims that WWI and WWII are but one war with a twenty year interregnum. Everything is subject to interpretation.I am in the middle of a move right now so will actually be off the net for about a month and a half starting in July. When I have more time, I will dig up the relevant numbers on industrial output, GDP, GNP, and provide citations for the sources of my contention that WWII did not end the Depression. I will try my best to not forget.You should notice that nowhere do I say that the war did not aid the recovery, I simply claim that WWII was not solely responsible for the economic recovery from the Depression as popular perception would have it.Lastly, are you now claiming that the depression didn't end until 1954 because that is when the stock market recovered, Depending on which indicator is chosen, I suppose that argument could also be made. Everything depends on which benchmark is used, and perception is everything.
