The War Finance Feature in Promoting Military Success

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

The war finance feature of Geoffrey Parker’s model of the “Western Way War” has been the most important factor in promoting military success over the past three centuries. States that have missed the early military revolutions cannot easily leap-frog to success in war by adopting the trappings of Western Technology. The Western Technology is too complicated to fathom without scrutinizing the details of World War I and World War II. The details of both wars include failures, successes, and stalemates.

Geoffrey Parker¹ theorized the ability to finance the war is very instrumental in the government’s ability to obtain disciplined soldiers and adequate equipments as future deterrent against potential conflicts. The war finance feature of Geoffrey Parker’s model of the “Western Way War” has been the most important factor in promoting military success over the past three centuries. Knox MacGregor and Murray Williamson² insisted paper money worth $450 million were released in 1863 to pay the governments’ war expenses.

Providing adequate pay for the soldiers proved to be the means for disciplined soldiers

The West realized they needed to pay the soldiers enough money to provide for their families. Some of the military officers focused on initially mobilizing 400,000 soldiers. The government’s military plan was to increase the army size to 1,300,000 within four months. The war strategy focuses on sending adequate war supplies and soldiers. The government should pamper the soldiers to bring out their best efforts in the war campaign.

Supplying money to the soldier’s family will go a long way to increasing the soldiers’ bravery in times of war. Sending the soldiers’ salaries to their families will encourage the soldiers to crash the enemies in Europe. The soldiers feel better upon learning the government sends money to the families back home to pay for the family’s daily home expenses like electricity, water, telephone, rent, and other payables.

The motivation soldiers had from good pay enabled the West to build big and mobile military units. The soldiers who were fighting on empty stomachs were too physically unfit to fight the enemy soldiers. A hungry soldier prioritizes finding food over fighting the enemy.

Mary Mililiken³ opined Maslow’s hierarchy indicates the soldiers need money to pay for their family’s food, clothing, shelter and other necessities.

Knox MacGregor and Murray Williamson⁴ emphasized being paid well, the soldiers of World War I and World War II were enthusiastic to maximize the government’s issue of food and clothing, guns, and ammunition, places to train, and the means of transport to accomplish the war’s goal of defeating the enemies during wars. War spending had ballooned from $477 million in 1916 to $8,450 million in 1918 alone.

Financial Strength enabled the West to finance technological innovations to soldiers’ would have the necessary equipment to be superior to their foes

Geoffrey Parker⁵ reiterated technology innovation gave the West the superiority needed to compensate for their inferior numbers. The soldiers received supplies and equipment to crash the enemies. The more than 400,000 soldiers used high technology equipment to overrun the opponents. The Advisory Commission of the National Defense Agency ensures the successful mobilization of scarce resources and supplies to the departments needing the additional medical and other war needs.

In addition, the troop construction was pegged at $ 7.5 billion. The Roosevelt administration implemented the private expansion facilities for war production. This was successfully put into place through accelerated depreciation and government financing. The war facilities were tasked to product large quantities of bullets and other war resources.

The private suppliers were paid handsome fees to manage the military plants. The private contractors were tasked to churn out large volumes of war resources. The war plants were generating military war machines like guns and bullets. The loan -lease program and other financial schemes help increase the resources needed by the government’s allies to overwhelm the war opponents.

Geoffrey Parker⁶ reiterated the government’s ability to stockpile wide panoply of weapons gave the West a huge advantage over its military foes. Normally, a powerful weapon will win over a less powerful weapon. The best way to win a war is to acquire more and better weapons compared to the weapons of the enemies. To accomplish this, the government had to raise funds.

Fund raising came from prioritizing legislation focused on increasing taxes. David Reynolds⁷ emphasized the nation’s Gross National Products had more than doubled from 1940 to 1945; the GNP⁸ grew from $100 billion to $212 billion in current prices. This was funded by the government’s imposition of individual income tax, corporate income tax, employment tax, alcohol tax, and tobacco tax. Government tax revenue climbed to more than 24 percent of the national income.

In addition, the government increased its war finance coffers by borrowing money. Frederic Paxson⁹ opined the first loan bill of World War I was made into law in 1917. The bond issue amounted to $5 million. In terms of financial management, the best leverage in terms of cash inflows is to have an equal amount of cash investments and borrowings.

The borrowed money can be realized by entering into a bond agreement with the government’s creditors. John Maynard Keynes¹⁰ emphasized the government has to locate or discover more gold to be legally allowed to print more paper bills. The war ended with a legacy of loans. Germany borrowed money from the Allies. The Allies owed lots of money to the Allied forces. Great Britain borrowed money to pay for its war campaigns.

Conclusion

The West’s ability to mobilize money has proven the key to success over the past three centuries. The ability to compensate soldiers and provide them adequate training and equipment was great for motivation. The compensation gave the soldiers a sense of justification necessary to compensate for the soldiers’ placing their lives on the line in the name of duty to God and country. Being been paid well, the soldiers are more than willing to die for their honor and patriotism. A hungry soldier lacks the will to fight the enemy.

The enemy’s superior weapons can be matched or overwhelmed with funding from taxes and borrowings to buy better war weapons. The 1917 Congress enacted the War Revenue Act to officially force the citizens to help finance the war campaigns. However, the increase in taxes was not enough to defray the expenses of protecting the soldiers and properties in the battlefield. In response, the government resorted to short term loans to cover the amounts not covered by the tax dollars.

The war loans were classified as Liberty Bonds and Victory Bonds. The bonds generated an additional $20 billion dollars to turn the tide of the war in the American favor. Training the soldiers to use the latest war weapons increases the soldiers’ survival ratio. The government did not spare a single dime to equip the American soldier with the latest war technology. In return for the more costly war arsenals, history shows the Americans won both World War I and World War II.

The unique system of war finance is the underlying factor in Western War victories and continues to be the dominant factor today. Wealthy states continue to wield an overwhelming military power over enemies having lesser war funds until the current year levels. For example, a person having a knife will normally lose to a person having an M-16 rifle.

The rifle costs higher than the kitchen knife. This is the very essence of American war finance principle. The cost of the war is secondary to winning the war. Indeed the war finance characteristic of Geoffrey Parker’s model of the “Western Way War” has been the most important variable in promoting military success over the past three centuries.

Bibliography

Keynes, John Maynard. The Economic Consequence of the Peace (New York: Transaction Press, 2003)

MacGregor, Knox and Williamson, Murray, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300- 2050 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)

Miliken, Mary. Understanding Human Behavior, (New York: Cengage Press, 2004)

Parker, Geoffrey. The Cambridge History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Paxson, Frederic. Recent History of the United States (New York: Read Books Press, 2007)

Reynolds, David. Allies at War: 1939-1945 (New York:Palgrave McMillan Press,1994)

Footnotes

1 Geoffrey Parker, The Cambridge History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1

2 Knox MacGregor and Murray Williamson, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050 (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2001), 88

3 Mary Miliken, Understanding Human Behavior, (New York: Cengage Press, 2004), 73

4 Knox MacGregor, Murray Williamson, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 88

5 Geoffrey Parker, The Cambridge History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1

6 Geoffrey Parker, The Cambridge History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1

7 David Reynolds, Allies at War: 1939-1945 (New York:Palgrave McMillan Press,1994), 181

8 Geoffrey Parker, The Cambridge History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1

9 Frederic Paxson, Recent History of the United States (New York: Read Books Press, 2007), 511

10 John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequence of the Peace (New York: Transaction Press, 2003), 280

Click Here To Order Now!