• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In two world wars, the richer countries mobilized their economiesmore successfully than others. How may we explain this? Identify and account for the most significant deviations from this rule.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

In two world wars, the richer countries mobilized their economies more successfully than others. How may we explain this? Identify and account for the most significant deviations from this rule. It is widely believed that military dominance was one of the key factors that led to the success of the allied powers in the World Wars. In both the wars, the coalition that won no doubt had a superior military strength. They fielded far greater number of soldiers and military equipment. In fact in World War I, the Allied army outnumbered the Central Powers by more than 60% and fielded almost double the amount of military equipment. In World War II the Allied armies fielded about 40% more soldiers and the military equipment advantage was similar to that of World War I .But a more in depth study of the economics of the wars would reveal that the ability of the nations to mobilize their economic resources for the purpose of war played an equally important role in the outcome of the war. The world mobilizing literally means 'The act of assembling, equipping, and preparing military and naval forces for active hostilities' i.e. to assemble and marshal economic resources for the purpose of war. ...read more.

Middle

To cover the other $167.2 billion, the Treasury Department also expanded its bond program, creating the famous "war bonds". The American economy expanded at an unprecedented rate between 1941 and 1945. The gross national product of the U.S., as measured in constant dollars, grew from $88.6 billion in 1939 to $135 billion in 1944. War-related production skyrocketed from just 2 percent of GNP to 40 percent in 1943 (Milward, 63). Table shows, output in many American manufacturing sectors increased enormously from 1939 to 1944, and the height of war production in many industries. Indices of American Manufacturing Output (1939 = 100) 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 Aircraft 245 630 1706 2842 2805 Munitions 140 423 2167 3803 2033 Shipbuilding 159 375 1091 1815 1710 Aluminium 126 189 318 561 474 Rubber 109 144 152 202 206 Steel 131 171 190 202 197 Source: Milward On the other hand countries with a low pre war level of output struggled to mobilize a high proportion of their economic resources for the war. Most of the poor countries had a large amount of their resources locked up in low productive subsistence agriculture. During war times, mobilization began to take resources away from agriculture particularly manpower. ...read more.

Conclusion

Pre 1914, economic factors were not as important as during the period of the great wars due to the inability of the government to mobilize the resources from industry and agriculture because too many people were required to work in the fields and workshops just to produce enough to feed the population, and it was economically unfeasible for the government officials to count, tax, and channel them into war. II The period between the great wars was unique. The dependence of military performance upon and pre economic development specifically holds true for this era in history. After World War II, the economic factors might have lost their significance again. This may be best summed up by the following. 'Since 1945 the economic factors in warfare may have lost significance again. This is because after the advent of nuclear weapons any rich country however small or any large country however poor could acquire devastating military force for a few billion dollars. Hence the marshalling of economic resources may have played a much more vital role in the outcome of the two world wars than was likely in any period before or since.' Source: Harrison, Mark. 2004. "Why the Rich Won: Economic Mobilization and Economic Development in Two World Wars. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Free essay

    The development of the international economy in the period 1945-2000 favoured rich countries at ...

    4 star(s)

    USA has enough command to be able, in collaboration with one more DC with a decent size of economic strength, to block any changes. These institutions have, therefore, been generally accountable to the US and to those of some other developed countries, and from the outset, did not grant aid

  2. Why did tension increase in Europe between 1900 and 1914?

    * The four powers, Germany, Italy, Britain and France, met at Munich on 28 September 1938. They agreed to let Hitler have the Sudetenland. * Hitler and Chamberlain signed an agreement that Britain and Germany would never go to war again.

  1. UNIT 6: PAPER 6b: THE SOVIET UNION AFTER LENIN

    * Endlessly exhorting people that life is better under the Soviet system just does not work when people know that there is very little food, that wages have gone down and so on. * Rumour, jokes and popular songs were all used to criticise the Party and often leaders in particular.

  2. China After World War II

    This is intended to justify their thoroughly reformist and opportunist policies which are diametrically opposed to the revolutionary policies of the genuine Marxists. The importance of reforms has never been denied by Marxists, but they never substitute reform for revolution, as the Stalinists do.

  1. In both world wars, many enemy aliens were interned in Australia

    This mindset was inevitably transferred to their colony, Australia. The flow on effect of this mindset can be seen in the migration policy aptly named the 'White Australia policy'. Although prior to the Great War immigration intake policies had been relaxed to take in some non-British migrates.

  2. Why didn't Britain make a continental commitment between the wars? Explain

    the money to go to another war or commit one hundred per cent to the League of Nations, and what money it did have was being spent on many things such as the empire, trying to attract the votes of women and on war pensions.

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    America's historic reluctance to use arguments of self-interest as a basis for foreign policy undoubtedly reflected a belief that, in a democracy, people would not support foreign ventures inconsistent with their own sense of themselves as a noble and just country.

  2. Africa and the role they played during both of the world wars.

    Before the war, the French set about creating a permanent black army. There was compulsory military service for all African males living in the French colonies.6 The British, on the other hand, did not use troops from there African colonies in Europe.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work