Title is a pun. You should laugh at and appreciate the pun. Please.
The United States we know and love today prides itself as the world's greatest military power, as our armed forces can show up literally almost anywhere on the seven continents, guns blazing or in the shadows, within the space of a few hours. Today, the defense budget takes up a very, very large portion of the federal budget, and inextricably ties our military to our economy. This was not always the case, and even as a world power, the United States did not always spend so heavily on the military.
Long long ago, following the end of WWI, policymakers were isolationist. Today, "non-intervention" seems to be the preferred term, but back then, Washington rightly feared the costs of engaging itself in another bloody conflict. As such, defense spending as a percentage of GDP fell from a peak of 22% in 1919 to 5% in 1920, then finally barely over 1% in 1929.(1) Much like the rest of the world, America willingly followed the desire for international disarmament, and facing the Great Depression, likely could not expand its military might even if it wanted to. However, this is not to say that America stopped spending on the military altogether. The 1922 Washington Naval Conference and the 1930 London Naval Treaty both represented international cooperation in reducing naval power, but still saw the United States and Britain maintaining their naval supremacy as the treaties allowed these two powers to build more ships than any other nation.(2)
Furthermore, the United States rejected outside supervision of disarmament, whether or not the party being disarmed was the United States. In 1926, Secretary of State Kellogg insisted that "The United States will not be a party to any sanctions of any kind for the enforcement of a treaty for the limitation of armaments."(2) President Hoover eventually reversed this stance, announcing that the US would support inspections in the name of real arms reductions, but was not enough to satisfy countries like France, which demanded a guarantee of military assistance inc as of attack. Even though the United States did, for the most part, disarm, the rest of the world failed to do so. As British diplomat Viscount Cecil wrote in 1931, "three years after the signature of the [Kellogg-Briand Pact], the nations are still spending over $4,500,000,000 a year on preparations to fight another, and this vast expenditure is still growing."(3) Cecil also acknowledged that mutual disarmament, not just the gutting of the German army, would be necessary to preserve peace. Since that didn't happen, the world got literally Hitler.
Most historians agree that WWII saved the American economy, as the necessities of war served as an antidote to the American downturn. In fact, rearmament and military spending actually increased slightly before the onset of war. FDR's Work Projects Administration had specific provisions against military projects, but military planners used the WPA to refurbish and build Army and Navy camps and armories anyway. After Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 and the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the WPA's role in military work only increased. In this way, the New Deal had a hand in the establishment of the American military-industrial complex.
Sources:
(1) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
(2) http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Arms-Control-and-Disarmament-Between-the-world-wars-1919-1939.html
(3) https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1931-10-01/facing-world-disarmament-conference
(4) https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/new-deal/essays/wpa-antidote-great-depression
I like how complicated the military industrial complex is.
ReplyDeleteAfter the New Deal and World War II, why does America's military industrial complex continue? Is American industry forever linked to military needs, or will there be a detachment of military and industry in the future?
This is also interesting because of the modern link to current events, like police militarization, which is mainly due to political connections with the companies that manufacture arms and armored vehicles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was a well written paper. It is interesting how the view of the navy changed throughout world war one. Before the war, Wilson decreased the size of the navy by creating higher wages and better conditions for sailors, especially in the navy. However, after the war much was done to strengthen the navy. I wonder how the opinion has changed over the years following world war 2 and the Afghanistan war as well.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see how significantly the views of the American people on military spending and budget has changed over the years. I never considered how large of an impact WWII had on the American economy, and how it may may have even had a positive effect on the Great Depression. I think that it would be worth mentioning though that when Washington advocated for isolationism, the US was a different country, it was smaller, brand new, and had no military to use. As well as it was a time of establishment, which is definitely not the time to make enemies.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't just people of Washington's time that wanted isolationism. After WWI, even though America had established itself as a military force, even though it had already made enemies and defeated them, people still wanted the US to stay out of foreign affairs. Not only did they not want to see any more American blood shed, but they did not want to be caught up in the messy politics of Europe.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete