What Were the Consequences of the First World War for the British People 1914 - 1924?

Authors Avatar

What Were the Consequences of the First World War for the British People 1914 - 1924?

There were many consequences and changes to British society because of the war, both positive and negative, however if you look closely some of the changes such as women obtaining the right to vote could have happened naturally - war or no war.

The war provided many changes both socially, economically and politically. One such social change was the population of men declining drastically, this was of course because of the death toll as a result of the war. As a result of this the population of women went up from 595 per thousand to 638 per thousand and the proportion of widows went from 38% - 43% and there were also now 3.5 million orphans. (1) So since women now outnumbered men it would be harder to ignore them, which meant since they outnumbered men more than they used to, they would have to be treated better, since women were the ones who had to bring up all the kids to make up for the loss. The other consequence of the great loss of men is that children lost their fathers and people had lost friends and relatives. `It was virtually impossible to avoid losing a relative or close acquaintance' (2). The severe loss was the most important change in society. The sadness of losing loved ones would have been unbearable. It also had a knock on effect towards industry and unemployment, because some of the people who ran businesses or factories died, it meant they had to shut them down hence the people who had jobs there before were now unemployed. By 1921 unemployment had risen to 2 million. (1) Some businesses were losing trade as well, for instance the staple industries were slowly eroding away because after the war there wasn't such a need for them, they didn't have to make as many weapons or ships, so there wasn't as much investment in these industries as before / during the war. As these businesses were losing money they would have to make job cuts or reduce employer's wages, which further added to the unemployment problems. This was the start of an economic crisis. Spending money on weapons, supplies for men, extra first aid and other necessities for the war meant the government were spending a lot more money than they used to (Over 50% of GNP by 1918) (1) and due to Britain's inability to pay debts to countries including the USA, they had a lot on their plate to deal with financially. The government had no choice but to raise income tax. So even those who were unemployed either suffered wage cuts or high tax bills. Which a great deal of the British public were face to face with poverty. Some were leading worse lives than they were before the war. This was their `reward' for fighting for their country. The war drained so much from Britain: men, money, and resources amongst others. It all interlinks. Less men equals more unemployment which equals less resources which means there's less trade which equals the government having less money which ultimately results in increased poverty. Britain was in a downward spiral which would be heard to get out of. (There were less resources because some of the people involves in labour of raw materials had died and also because they used them up or wasted them in the war and also that Britain lost her textiles markets in India and China.) (1)Trade was hit by millions of tonnes of shipping being sunk and the loss of overseas markets ( Britain increasingly had to keep to trading within their own country as a result of this.) a disadvantage of loosing overseas markets is that you don't have such a wide variety of goods. For example, since it was hard to obtain the staple products in Britain, if it became hard to obtain them overseas, then the staple industries will further decline. During the war, in 1915, the treasury agreement was passed which meant semi-skilled or unskilled workers could now be employed in jobs which were previously reserved for skilled workers. (The skilled workers went into jobs that really only required genuine skill). So this and the `leaving certificate' helped redeem the post-war situation slightly in that if lots of skilled workers died in the war, the unskilled/semi-skilled could fill their boots. This still didn't help with the post war unemployment boom though and it did restrict the freedom and power of the worker by making it increasingly harder to go on strike. (They did this because they needed all the workers they could get to keep up with the high productivity rates needed for the war.) This didn't last long however, because once the feeling of community and co-operation had worn off a few broke the rules and went on strike anyway. One group of people that certainly prospered from the war in terms of employment were women. Because the vast majority of men were out fighting the war, there were obviously numerous job vacancies and industries such as the munitions factories needed more workers than before the war due to high demand. So they turned to women to fill in the gaps. A lot of working class women had worked before, but what were changing were the types of jobs being performed; they were now getting paid more and had more secure jobs. Women, form being totally dependent on men and used to being treated as second class citizens were now thinking for themselves, were financially and physically independent and realised that they were just as much a part of society as men and had an important role to play. They were gradually catching up with men on the equality front. Not only were women getting more jobs, a lot of them were in top white collar jobs such as clerks and shop assistants and because in the war they did so well in these jobs, some of the women got to keep them. But it didn't stop here for women, as well as getting more/ better jobs. In 1918 women over 30 got the vote, (as well as men over 21) this was because the war effort changed male attitudes towards women and also because women showed they were independent and could strive in society.

Join now!

Although there was a great deal of poverty and depression after world war one, the government did a great deal to try and make living standards bearable again - particularly in working class areas. Because all of the bombing, obviously a lot people had lost their homes, there were more houses blown up then they had time to build new ones, so the `homes fit for heroes' campaign was set up, which was basically a scheme to quickly build new housing, for instance new tower blocks for those who fought in the war mainly, but also others who had ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Avatar

the main strength of the essay is the depth of the knowledge and detail about the period. It would have been better if the planning had been more ruthless. The paragraphs needed to have strong and clear key points and in places the essay drifts around and is not sharply focussed. For the higher levels sharp focus on the issue in the question and carefully selected supporting detail is essential.

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

The spelling, grammar and punctuation is generally good, meaning there is no confusion over what the student means, although there are some minor errors in the essay that make it less logical: for example, "The war provided many changes both socially, economically and politically" doesn't quite make sense because the word "both" refers to two things, not more than two. Although this wouldn't lose the student marks, it makes their work appear rushed and as though it hasn't been proofread. The student also says some things that seem out of place and informal in an academic essay on a serious topic, such as "Basically it changes a lot, which party is in power", which sounds more like something that would be said in a conversation rather than written down. To improve both of these errors, it would be better to check your work and make sure it has a logical and suitable tone. It is also important to refer correctly to the Conservative Party as "the Conservatives" or "the Conservative Party" rather than "Labour got into power in 1997 replacing conservative." as this student does, as it shows correct and accurate knowledge.

In terms of factual evidence, the student makes excellent use of statistics, such as "Over 50% of GNP by 1918", which is good as it shows that the student recognises that this is a high percentage. This is better than saying "It was a high proportion of GNP by 1918", because that doesn't prove that the student understands how much a "high proportion" actually is. However, the reference to modern-day politics in the third paragraph from the end is unnecessary because it is way out of the timescale (1914 - 1924), which suggests to the examiner that the student is off task. While the point the student is making is good - a change in the party in power is perhaps inevitable, rather than a consequence of anything - they could appear to be more on task by referring to other changes in party power nearer to the period, such as 1906 when the Liberal Party defeated the Conservatives. The student makes some good judgements, such as "So you could say the suffragists and suffragettes won the right to vote single-handedly", because they have responded to evidence while using the word "could" to show that they realise nothing is certain in history and there are several interpretations on why women got the vote. However, other judgements are inaccurate, such as "the government was in a state of chaos during the war anyway". This isn't supported by any factual evidence, and it is inaccurate because the second wartime government was highly organised - for example, it created an organisation called the Cabinet Secretariat to record and organise the business of Cabinet government. It is vital to always back up what you are arguing with evidence, or else your judgements can become inaccurate. However, the conclusion is very good, because it summarises the arguments made in the essay (which shows the student can organise their ideas) and answers the original question, which shows they can look back over their work and assess it to find an answer.

This is a good essay with some factual evidence and a good conclusion, but would benefit from a stronger understanding of factual evidence and a better quality of writing. The student clearly understands the need to consider several consequences of the First World War, so they are right to consider more than one. The student takes this a step further by considering whether the upheaval Britain experienced in this period was "natural progression" or a direct consequence of the war, and by considering this they are showing they have additional knowledge and understanding, as this is not mentioned in the question but is still relevant. This particular idea is explored well by the student, and it is clearly something they understand. Quoting Asquith in the fifth paragraph shows that the student can blend their own response to the question with those of others, and also shows they have read around the subject. The student could improve on their introduction by summarising the arguments they are about to make - at present they refer to one consequence of the First World War (women's suffrage) but it would show they could organise their ideas if they referred very briefly to each consequence they are about to mention, something that would only take a couple of extra sentences in total.