The federal bureaucracy in the US registered tremendous developments during the First World War. Many analysts observe that the modern era of the system of government is said to have started after the war since many people joined the government as compared to the previous trend, where only a few had the chances to serve their country at the top level.
During the First World War, the bureaucracy, whose headquarters was in Washington, spent more money on employee salaries as opposed to fifty years earlier, when the national treasury never considered civil servants salaries a matter of concern.
Introduction
The role of the bureaucracy was expansive during the war since the state was expected to provide many services to the citizens, something that led to the formulation of stronger rules and regulations to guide the conduct and behavior of bureaucrats, given the fact their decisions affected a wider society. The state had to deal with the new challenge of survivors of the war, with the majority being the immigrants from Europe escaping inhuman mistreatment from their governments and despotic leaders.
The government had to establish offices to check into the issues facing veterans, as well as cater for the welfare of the citizens under the social security system. The issues related to inheritance, as well as compensation, was rampant, and the state had to establish mechanisms through which death benefits could be administered to prevent further conflicts.
Due to this, the federal bureaucracy grew in size, and its scope expanded as well since the government was much involved in human affairs. However, the new trend led to strong resentment against government officials and the departments they headed or served.
Role of Politics-Congress
During the First World War, there were calls from the political quarters, particularly the congress, to improve the federal bureaucracy, since the country was facing various economic and socio-political challenges for the first time in the 20th century. In fact, the handling of the federal bureaucracy became a political agenda that shaped the public opinion, and voters were expected to cast their vote for a party based on its approach to the issue.
Interest groups called on the government to intervene mainly to salvage the lives of those affected by draughts and catastrophes, but the government had insufficient human resources to address several problems that faced its citizens, ranging from health issues to economic challenges. The United States had become popular globally, and its position as regional and global hegemony was being felt everywhere, yet its people never enjoyed their economic and social rights.
By then, the US economy, its population, and influence were unmatched, and it was felt that the government had to do something to make its citizens great. Unfortunately, the government never had the capacity to engage its people in socio-economic development, and this was the time when strengthening the federal bureaucracy was viewed as the only valid option, as it would give each person an opportunity to access government services.
Economic Hardships
As the First World War was ongoing, the country was facing an economic recession, commonly referred to as the Great Depression, which changed the American perception towards bureaucracy and the entire government. Supporters of classical liberalism suggested that the state had to intervene to bring sanity, something that senior officials borrowed heavily. The government was expected to respond to the declining economy by facilitating members of the public, meaning that the establishment of departments and agencies was critical.
Additionally, the country was facing widespread social misery, issues of violence against minorities, and social conflicts. In this case, the state was forced to design programs that would facilitate employment, which resulted in the expansion of the federal bureaucracy. As the government was committed to ending war together with its western counterparts, the executive designed a policy to expand the responsibilities of the federal government, as it was felt the state was exposed to external attacks.
The social movements, especially those charged with reforms, forced the government to take charge in order to address issues to do with civil rights, challenges of urbanization, and environmental problems. Since changes in society were inevitable, the expansion of the federal bureaucracy was mandatory.
Change of Leadership
Before the First World War, the federal bureaucracy was simply made up of few employees serving only three departments, including state, treasury, and war departments. During the war, the government embarked on a massive exercise of employing people to serve in various departments that had just been established to offer important services to citizens. As the number of those willing to work with the state was increasing, the hiring standards, as well as the training methods, were adjusted.
Before, people were simply given jobs based on patronage, but the system of recruitment was adjusted, including the promotion criteria during and after the First World War. Initially, President George Washington had made a strong promise to the Americans to hire individuals based on their expertise, but it was never the case until the WWI since senior civil servants were mostly the members of the ruling party.
There was a tendency where the incoming head of state dismissed senior bureaucrats with the aim of replacing them with his or her cronies, but this system changed during the war, as rewarding friends and political allies with state jobs was viewed as discriminatory.
Before the war, Andrew Jackson had tried to do away with the spoils or patronage system, but his attempt was not successful since resistance was faced by veteran bureaucrats. During the war, it was felt unnecessary to terminate the services of civil servants that had worked with predecessors, unless they proved to be incompetent and corrupt.
Gilded Age Millionaires
The opposition to the Gilded Age millionaires, who utilized their positions to enrich themselves, facilitated the early twentieth-century developments in the federal bureaucracy. The tycoons in government were indifferent to the sufferings of the majority since they were concerned with wealth accumulation instead of being imbued to service delivery, something that sparked widespread criticism. The government had to intervene to regulate the labor market, as claims of children being exploited were reported.
The state was faced with the challenge of redeeming its image, which was not possible without sufficient personnel and suitable agencies, as well as departments. During the war, various existing departments were split to allow the citizens to access quality service more easily.
The First World War forced the US government to develop various programs in order to achieve national interests, both locally and abroad, meaning many individuals had to be incorporated into government. For the first time in American history, the government was employing an interventionist approach by helping the European states in ending the war that had affected the lives of many citizens. Therefore, sufficient policies and programs had to be designed to ensure success, and this expanded the federal bureaucracy.
When the American congress agreed to Woodrow Wilson’s request that America join WW1 on the side of the allies in April 1917, it was nearly three years since the war had broken out1. Up to that point, in spite of continuous provocations by Britain and Germany, and especially the latter, America had remained in the mainstream and kept its promise to remain neutral in the war and continue doing business with both sides.
The three years have been used to argue that the US was unwilling to enter the war; that the US was neutral as Woodrow Wilson had declared. But this is not exactly true; the US was not neutral, neither was it unwilling to join the war. In this paper we shall explore this assertion.
Discussion
As the war broke out in Europe, Woodrow Wilson, in calling for neutrality said that the Americans “must remain impartial both in thought and in action”2. But was this true, that the US could remain impartial in thought and in action? First, let us look at the ‘thought’. From the earlier days of war, it was obvious that the US would be more aligned to the allies, mainly led by Britain and France; as one historian observed “France had lent a hand to the colonies during the times of American Revolution”3.
Now America recalled those times and it was time for payback, but America was also more “socially and culturally connected with Britain in terms of literature, language and democratic institutions”4. With these historical factors and ties in place, it is doubtful that the US would have been neutral, at least not in thought.
But in the first two years of the war, the undecided ‘thought’ became reflected in the ‘actions’ of the US as well. The US had made great investments in the efforts of the allies in the war.
“Soon, as the war progressed and it became highly likely that the blockade by the British would only allow the US to trade with allies, the US took upon itself to finance essentials such as foods and weapons for both France and Great Britain”5 and the US industries basked in the market. On the economic front and in arms supply it became obvious to the Germans, there was no partiality as the US’s sympathies and loyalty lay mostly with the allies.
Up to this point, it is clear that the US was not as neutral as they had claimed. But these factors are not to be solely blamed on the US. Britain, having cut off communication between the US and the alliance, especially Germany, controlled much of the information on the war that reached the US. With this it became easy to absolve the US of the German-type-itchiness to join the war.
This is especially reflected in the US’s act of restraint and control to avoid getting into the war even in the face of rude provocations by the warring camps, especially Germany. It has been argued that “the Zimmerman Telegram’ was one of the major immediate impetuses for the US joining the war”6.
This is true, especially in the sense that by threatening the US’s stance on the dispute zones along its borders with Mexico, Germany was most explicitly taking the war to the US front door. Yet, in declaring war, President Woodrow Wilson gave the main reason as an effort to make the world a safer place for democracy to thrive.
The truth was that the US had to, amongst other reasons, save the allies from falling and hence guard against losing its loans to them. But it sought to hide these fears under a ‘global’ face. This marked the first of US’s effort to use its so-called search for global democracy to veil its own immediate interests. ‘Global’ democracy has been what defines the US’s foreign policy even up to date; the US’s global foreign policy has been the impetus behind its place as the ‘superpower’.
It is quite convenient how the US’s entry had coincided with the subsiding strength of the allies. Yet in spite of joining the war on the sides of the allies, President Wilson had decided that the US would fight alone; that is, without integrating the American military with the ally armies (French and British). This became a major bone of contention amongst the allies in the dying days of the war.
Conclusion
Contrary to the truth, the US claimed impartiality in thought and action while it continued to supply the allies in the war with arms, food and financial aid while at the same time seeking to end the war. These factors expose much of the US’s perception of this war at the time.
Of course, if the US hadn’t entered the war, the damage would definitely have been worse; its entry marked the end of the war and an uglier ending. But one must also acknowledge that the outcome of WW1 laid the ground for WW2, and both these wars marked the US’s rise to world power.
Frontier Encounters: 1865-1896. Westward expansion. Native Americans in the West. The Far West
Wild West was colonized due to the efforts of a great number of people. However, despite the popular opinion of the individual initiative of the first settlers, the federal government played a great role in facilitating the settlement of the West (Hewitt and Lawson 469).
They promoted and encouraged people who wanted to investigate huge territories of the West. Great influence also had international companies and foreign capital. These companies invested huge sums of money understanding profitableness and perspective of this process.
However, this process also met some resistance. Native Americans did not want to change their place of living and leave their traditional homeland. A great number of military conflicts and skirmishes were the result of this resistance. However, having worse weapons and technologies, Indians were doomed to fail, being defeated again and again — moreover, the government-supplied settlers in their war with Native Americans.
However, trying to stop murders and violence, the Dawes Act was accepted. There were created some reservations for Indians. Moreover, they received inferior farmlands and inadequate tools to cultivate them. Being very unfair, this act just promoted further worsening of the situation.
However, the settlers continued their movement, and a new stage of colonization of the Far West started. These territories attracted a great number of white settlers and Chinese people. They tried to obtain some land or earn money and return home and start everything anew there. However, the West was not very welcoming for Chinese. Anti-Chinese clubs became an influential power in the region, and under their influence, the US government accepted some laws which prevented further influx of Chinese people.
American Industry in the Age of Organization: 1877-1900. Late 19th-century American industrial transformation. The idea of New South. The Jim Crow South
Between 1970 and 1900, the USA grew into a global industrial state (Hewitt and Lawson 495). The country developed new branches of industry and ways of production. A very important role in this process was the railroad. This period of time can be called the age of its blistering development. The USA was one of the countries which had the greatest tempo of development of this new mean of transport. New railroad tracks connected different parts of a huge country, allowing fast connections between all regions.
With the development of industry, new ideas become more and more popular in society. Great significance obtained the idea of New South as the contrast to Old South with its plantations and slavery. New ideas obtained their followers who considered them to be actual and fair.
Moreover, a great number of different advocates achieved great successes in different cases connected with the shift of interests and beliefs in society. There was a lively discussion in society connected with the conditions of African Americans in the state, who were still treated as people of the second sort. Additionally, the Jim Crow laws in practice legalized segregation and created different living conditions for African Americans.
Workers and Farmers in the Age of Organization: 1877-1900. Late 19th-century industrial society. Populism
Industrialization of the USA influenced all aspects of the social life of the country. Moreover, there were also significant changes it traditional American society.
The appearance of a great number of different plants led to the creation of a great number of working places. However, this fact also resulted in the cheapening of the labour and, as a result, the middle salary became lower. At the same time, people had to work under difficult conditions without any chance to improve them. Women turned their homes into workplaces, trying to earn money while looking after children and house.
Faced with improved but inadequate wages, workers tried to fight against corporate capitalists. The main method was to organize unions, a group of workers who tried to seek rights and benefits from their employers (Hewitt and Lawson 474). However, the last ones refused to participate in these negotiations and ignored all demands of workers. As a result, there were some serious strikes and even clashes between workers and owners of factories.
Agrarians had their own way to struggle with corporate capitalists. Having recognized great influence and importance of politics, agrarians created their own party, which was called Peoples party, or populists. Being very successful at the beginning of its development, it then collapsed because of some drawbacks in its political course. Their candidate for president even managed to win more than one million popular votes (Hewitt and Lawson 542), however populists negative attitude to banks and finances led to their collapse.
Cities, Immigrants, and the Nation: 1880-1915. Late 19th-century urbanization. The character of the industrial city. Urban political corruption
Industrialization of the USA also influenced the blistering growth of cities. Being concentrated in large towns, factories and plants stimulated influx of workforce. As a result, a great number of new cities appeared and existing one continued their growth. To a large extent, it was determined by a great number of immigrants who came to America hoping to start a new life. Most of more than 20 million people who came in this period of time were from Southern or Eastern Europe (Hewitt and Lawson 551).
The wave of immigrants changed the structure of American society and influenced its further development greatly. Majority of the population of a big city like New York or Chicago were presented by immigrants from other countries.
That is why it is obvious that the conditions of life in cities changed. Immigrants created their communities which altered the traditional life of cities. Moreover, the whole districts became inhabited by people from one country. Great number of different languages could be heard in the street. Traditions of different folks created the basis for the multicultural character of the USA.
As a result of a great influx of migrants, cities became overpopulated. It was very difficult to control them and regulate their life. That is why the phenomenon of city bosses appeared. Bosses were people who obtained power with the help of corruption, paying money to voters for them to vote more than one time.
Moreover, they controlled all the capital of the city, both legal and illegal. However, the current state of affairs did not satisfy people and government; that is why mass reform movement led to some changes in the system. Nevertheless, the political machine still remained corrupted.
Progressivism and the Search for Order: 1900-1917. Dynamics of Progressivism. Responses to Black conditions
The level of corruption became so high that it was impossible to ignore it. That is why some special kind of journalists appeared, who wrote about the problems of government and corruption. This movement was so large that journalists of this sort even obtained a special term, muckrakers. They were the part of the progressive movement which was peculiar for the USA of that period of history.
Moreover, progressivism also touched such sphere as the struggle for the rights of African Americans. Booker T. Washington and WEB du Bois created their own approaches to the issue of race discrimination. Having different points of view on this problem, they still demanded equal rights for African Americans. That was the beginning of the movement for termination of race discrimination in the USA.
Works Cited
Hewitt, Nancy and Steven Lawson. Exploring American Histories: A Brief Survey with Sources, first edition, combined volume. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.
One of the factors that influenced Native Indians active participation in the First World War was patriotism. However, historians are in disagreement on this issue, Camurat is of the opinion that some native Indians out of patriotism requested to participate in the war.1 Camurat in her thesis mentions Chief Red Fox’s journey to Washington in 1917, to see Newton baker offering the services of his fellow Indians in the War he was quoted as saying, “from all over the West we now stand ready 50,000 Indians between the ages of seventeen and fifty-five. We beg of you, to give us the right to fight. We guarantee to you, sir, our hearts could be for no better cause than to fight for the land we love, and for the freedom, we share.”2
There were also assimilated Indians who by the virtue of proximity to the Whites developed a spirit of patriotism, education also contributed to the development of patriotism as some of them were already educated. Most of the students who went to schools away from the reserves came to the realization that they were, ‘first Americans and then indians second.’3 The schools also taught patriotic songs as well as observation of national holidays, this played a significant role in the development of patriotism as well as breaking the underlying tribal ties in the among the Indian students.
In addition, the economic conditions in the reserves was also played a role as a motivating factor. The natives in the reserves experienced poor economic conditions. These conditions forced them to find opportunities far from the desparation in the reservations. Finger, explains that just as Oneinda Indian had done in 1863 during the civil war, so did Thomas Mails by enlisting the Apache soldiers in 1917.4
Cato Sells the Commissioner of Indian affairs undertook the registration of native Indians in the reservations, he was the Commissioner of Indian Affairs as well as the governor the Indian reservations.5 “He coordinated mobilization and the registration of all persons living in the reservations through his supritendants and by July of 1917, Sells had completed the process.”6
Soon after the registration, the drafting began, all male Indians between twenty one and thirty years of age who were citizens, qualified for the draft, there was a sizable turnout for drafting as they registered in numbers. Native Indians served in all segment of the American army during the Fisrt World War, some were in the Calvery and others in the Military Police. They were known to be war like and ready for action a reputation that suited them in this war.7 Indian Women were not left out, they also participated in the war as nurses, entertainers and caterers. Some of the Indian women who entered this war were, Tsianina Redfeather, Anne Ross a descendant of Cherokee chief, John Ross.8
Native Indians displayed varoius acts of bravery and were instrumental in most occasions, they won praises from their counterparts as well as the commanders. One noted incident was the offensive at St. Mihiel in France, according to Britten;
“As fighting continued along the Vesles Sector, Pershing in mid-August began preparation for an offensive against the St. Mihiel stronghold. Early September 12, 1918, nearly 3000 American artillery guns opened fire at on German positions near St. Mihiel. Four hours after the artillery began its bombardments, the American ground assault began and for the next five days, American and French troops swamped through the forest and villages near St. Mihiel. The AEL reported 7000 casualties, taken nearly 15,000 German prisoners, captured 450 guns and secured the german position.”9
Major Frank Knox noted that the Indians showed great courage under fire, also singled out was Sam Lanier, a Cherokee who received praise for his performance. He was a truck driver and worked six days without sleep and never abandoned his truck under intense shelling.10
There has been conflicting information regarding the number of native Indians who participated in the First World War. Boston Hampton Committee indicated that 12,000 Indians were enlisted in the Canadian army and 5000 in the United States army. The committee does not mention in detail how many volunteers served in the United States forces.11 According to Hazel Hertzberg, an article written in 1920 by Red Fox mentioned 9,000 Indians in the Army, whom he refered to as “young braves.”12 Cato Sells who was in charge of Indian Affairs mentioned 6,000 enlisted Indian men in 1918 and later changed to 10,000 servicemen.13
According to Alison Bernstein while quoting from Micheal Tate and Jennings Wise estimates the number at 10,000 who she refers to as volunteers.14 The final report by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs mentioned that 6,509 Indians went to war, though the figures do not include volunteers.15 It is generally assumed looking at the data from the local Indian agencies, that the volunteers matched those who were inducted by 50%, these makes the number many scholars believe to have served at 13,000.16
The number of Indian soldiers who died in the war was high compared to that of the American Forces, as most of them were in the frontline and brave enough to take on the action. Norton, et al. (1990) claims that out of every 5 deaths, one was an Indian.They further assert that disease was as deadly as the war, half the deaths were caused by influenza that was wide spread all over the world during this period.
Effects of World War One on Indian Soldiers and Their Families
The American Psychological Association initiated a series of tests on the Indian soldiers who returned from the war. There was the Eddy’s psychological tests, Stanford- Binet test which classified the inductees based on their intelligence. The testing program came to an end in 1919 with the revelation that most of the inductees were illiterate.17
After the war, Indians were integrated into the army and most of them pursued carriers in the military. There was a heated debate then, whether to separate or integrate the Indians. One of the proponents of separation was Joseph Dixon who went as far as addressing the House Committee on Military Affairs on his separatist ideas. His plan was to help assimilate indians through training, he proposed gathering Indian divisions to be positioned near the reservations not to profit the Indians but from them.18 His ideas received wide spread condemnations from American Indian organizations and in 1917 the Committee rejected them.19
During the war, the Indians were not only few compared to total number of the U.S Army, but scattered among them as well. This had a profound effect on them because most of them changed their way of life as they adopted to white man’s life and manners. They were not segregated as their African American counterparts. This situation led to what Barsh termed the “civilizing effect of the war.”20 Their experience in France exposed them to a situation they could not have imagined before the war, they saw new landscapes, heard new languages and mingled with people with different cultures. These experiences broadened their minds and horizons.21
Many of the Native American soldiers who saw combat became traumatized just as the other war veterans. They were not happy to be away from combat instead, many of them became depressed. The deadly combat left them mentally scarred, their “homes became foreign, filled with aliens”. Most of them educated on the battlefield, could only share their experiences with those whom they served with in the war. This generation turned out to be a physically and morally “lost generation.”22 They did not adapt well to life in the reservation and would not speak of their experiences. They thought the horror they saw was irrelevant to their people instead, they took refuge in silence.
After their return from the war, Indian soldiers were offered a chance to become citizens of the United States. “The Indian Citizenship Act enacted on 6th November 1919 was not an automatic citizenship but upon application”.23The Commissioner of Indian Affairs then, greeted it as a “just and fitting tribute to the intelligence, patriotism, and courage of the young men of a virile and enduring race.”24 However not all of them took the chance because they still considered the white man the foreigner in addition, some just did not care.
The soldiers who returned from battle not only were exposed to money but worldly and selfish attitudes. In their interaction with the white men and other cultures, they learnt the value of money and consumption of alcohol. When they finally came back home to the reservations, many of them used the money paid as compensation and benefits in drinking alcohol. Nonetheless, they started stealing cattle and sold them to buy whisky. These practices were unheard of in the Sioux Country, which further alienated them from their people, a situation that frustrated their family members.25 Nonetheless, the war had a terrible effect on the families of those who returned home as well as those who lost their lives in the war. The war resulted in many Indian deaths and their families were shaken as some of these soldiers were heads of their families.
While the Indians were fighting in the war, the whites took advantage of the war to acquire Indian lands. A member of the Board of Indian Commission was quoted in 1918 saying;
“if the farming land of the Crow Reservation is to be made useful it will have to be leased to white farmers until such time as the Indians can be educated up to the point where they will become self-supporting farmers. I am rather inclined to favor not only a liberal leasing policy but also a rather liberal selling policy touching surplus land.”26
In 1917, Franklin Lane, the then Secretary of the Interior said that the acquired Indian agricultural land had increased to 50 from 25%. He also expected to acquire another 50,000 acres within one year that would be cultivated under leases.27
Indian Politics during 1850-1940
After the Civil war, those in charge of the Indian affairs were concerned about the state of the Indian country. Miners had invaded the Indian country; the Indians also seemed to bear a heavy cost of military warfare. There were incidences that took place in the Sioux country such as the massacre at Sand Creek that took place in November 1864, white settlers’ aggression and the diminishing number of the Indian population as reported by the Doolittle Committee in 1867 that led to the creation of the United States Peace Commission. The work of this Commission was to facilitate the signing of treaties with the Indians to ensure their peaceful coexistence with the whites. A major concern of the policy makers was advancement of the transcontinental railways. 28 This commission signed a treaty in October 1867 that created reservations for southern Plains Indians and in 1868, a treaty that set aside Great Sioux reserve in Dakotas for the northern Plain Indians.29
In April 1869, President Ulysses Grant, established the Board of Indian Commissioners. This Board composed of eminent men mostly protestant Christians who were to serve without remuneration.30 This commission was to create reservations, discourage tribal practices and help assimilate the Indians into the American system as citizens. Eighteen Sixty-eight saw the ceding of Ponca reservation by the treaty of Fort Laramie to Sioux. In 1877, they were removed from Indian Territory as many of them died.31 The other two incidences that resulted in a huge public outcry was the movement of Northern Cheyenne further north in 1878 and the capture of Chief Nez Percés. A Senate Committee investigation revealed unwarranted treatment of this population.32
These kinds of sufferings seemed a common occurrence in this era and caused angry reaction by human rights activists, which resulted in the formation of humanitarian associations. A good example was the “Indian Rights Association in 1882 founded by Henry Pancoast and Herbert Welsh.”33 This association advocated for investigations and legislation in the Indian territories. They organized themselves into a national network of branches and found a forum of exchange as early as 1883.34
In 1887, the government introduced the General Allotment Act, which was to authorize the president of the United States to allot land in the reservations. This act was to help break the tribal connections of the Indians, civilize them and grant them citizenship upon allotment. It was also aimed at making farmers out of the Indians. The act also gave the Secretary of interior authority to buy the surplus land from the allotment process.
The treasury would then educate and try to civilize the respective communities using some of the money from the sale of their land. However, those tribes that were considered as civilized were excluded from the act. The then Senator from Colorado Henry Teller did not agree with the contents of the act and opposed it from the start saying that “ought to be entitled ‘a bill to despoil the Indians of their lands and to make them vagabonds on the face of the earth.”35 His sentiments were accurate and later used in criticizing the Act in 1920 and early 1930.
In 1880, the tribes whose territories that had been excluded from the Allotment Act were proclaimed by as open settlement land. Whites’ settlers and railway companies exerted the pressures under the pretext that there was wide spread lawlessness in the territories leading to the formation of a formal territorial government in “Oklahoma in 1890 and in 1907, Oklahoma became a State of the Union.”36 By 1893, 15 million acres of Cherokee land was made available for white settlement. In 1898, the Curtis Act outlawed tribal practices putting all Indian territories under United States jurisdiction. By 1907, the Federal government declared native Indians United States citizens.37 Most of the lands finally allotted by 1920 were “North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and northern California.”38
The Allotment Act raised many problems; one assumption was, upon the death of the owner during the twenty-five year trust period, the land was to be divided and inherited by a descendant. The result would be smaller pieces of land that could not be developed; in addition, the heirs had their own land to worry about. In 1907, the Congress authorized the sale of inherited land, but this did not solve the problem and this resulted in fractionalization of Native Indian land. 39
The prevailing conditions of the time did not make it easy for the Indians to adapt farming as it was expected of them. Most of the allotments were located in areas with minimal rainfall. It was hard to farm without water, furthermore; most of them did not have money to buy basic agricultural tools. On the realization of this fact, the Indian office initiated a wide scale irrigation scheme financed by money from the tribal funds. However, the Indians did not cultivate their land and preferred leasing them out. In addition, the irrigation threatened their water rights.40
In 1900, life in the Indian reservations proved desperate. There was the creation of the Indian Police as well as the establishment of Courts. It appeared as if their land was taken from them and even worse, the Whiteman destroyed the traditions that they valued as well as their internal unity. The Indian Courts punished offences such as polygamous marriages, dances, medicine practices and most practices the white did not understand.41
Native Indian Life during World War One
In 1911, at Columbus Ohio, Fayette McKenzie together with a group of prominent American Indians who included, Dr. Charles A. Eastman, Charles E. Daganett, Dr. Carlos Montezuma Reverend Sherman Coolidge, Thomas L. Sloan, Henry Roe Cloud and Arthur C. Parker formed the Society of American Indians.42 The members all went to white man’s schools and were guided by evolutionary ideas. The adapted a platform of education and citizenship for the American Indians. They seemed to favor assimilation and published the Quarterly Journal for two years between 1913 and 1915, they also published American Indian magazine for five years from 1915 to 1920. However, consensus faded away as they failed to agree upon the suppression of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Moreover, the use of peyote became a controversial issue as some of them opposed it while others were part of it.43
When the United States finally entered the war, there was great need of resources to finance the war. Liberty bonds were used to finance the war; Cato Sells encouraged the Indians at home to participate in the war by subscribing the bonds. By the time the first issue of Liberty Bonds came out American Indians had subscribed to over $ 4 million. 44 The commissioner of Indian Affairs Cato Sells cited the move as motivated by investment need rather than patriotism. He regarded this to suggest growth of Indian attitude pertaining to their general welfare.45 The involvement of Indian schools was significant as they provided support as volunteers to the Red Cross. Thirty thousand pupils worked as volunteers sewing, gathering moss to make surgical pads and pillows.
The difference between the attitude of American Indians before, during and after the war is striking. The Native Indians were concern with their way of life and resisted any form of interference in their way of life. A good example is The Chief of Comanches who surrendered to the Whites in the battle of Adobe, just because he wanted to keep the traditions he inherited from his parents. They valued their traditional patterns and could do anything to save the cultural lives from annihilation.
On the other hand, they we see them subjugated by their so-called enemy and confined to the reservations. They did not seem to understand what was going on around them; perhaps because they were not farmers and did not put value in their land. However, during the war, they seemed willing to participate alongside the Whiteman. The Whiteman had classified them as either noble and peaceful or war-like. Nonetheless, they undergo intensive assimilation. By 1917, they are serving in the United States Army symbolizing Americanness and fully participating in the United States intervention in Europe. After the war, many took their rightful place as citizens of the United States of America.
Bibliography
American Indian Y.M.C.A. Bulletin. “Lessons from Army Life.” Virginia: Amstrong, 1919. Web.
Barsh, Russel L. “American Indians in the Great War.” Ethnohistory, 38, no.3 (1991): 276-303. Web.
Bernstein, Alison R. American Indians and World War II. Norman & London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. Web.
Boston Hampton Committee. A Brief Sketch of the Record of the American Negro and Indian in the Great War. The Committee, Boston: Boston Hampton Committee, 1919. Web.
Britten, Thomas A. American Indians in World War I: At home and at war. University of New Mexico Press, 1998. Web.
Camurat, Diane. The American Indian in the Great War: Real and Imagined. Diane Camurat, 1993. Web.
Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The American Indian and the United States: A Documentary History. New York: Random House, 1973. Web.
Commissioner of Indian Affairs Report. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Web.
Delanoë, Nelcaya, and Joëlle Rostkowski. Les Indiens dans l’Histoire américaine. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1991. Web.
Department of the Interior. Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1918. Web.
Finger, John R. Cherokee Americans: The Eastern Band of Cherokees in the Twentieth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991. Web.
French, Warren. The ‘Lostness’ of a Joyless Generation. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne nouvelle,1993. Web.
Hagan, William T. United States Indian Policies, 1860-1890. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1988. Web.
Hertzberg, Hazel W. Indian Rights Movement, 1887-1973. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1988. Web.
Hertzberg, Hazel W. The Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern Pan-Indian Movements. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1972. Web.
Hoxie, Frederick E. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Web.
Kelly, Laurence C. United States Indian Policies, 1900-1980. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1988. Web.
Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Web.
Mails, Thomas E. Fools Crow. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. Web.
Norton, Mary Beth, et al. A People and a Nation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990. Web.
Prucha, Francis Paul. In Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Pres, 1975. Web.
Prucha, Francis Paul. Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the Indian,” 1880-1900. Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1973. Web.
Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Web.
Prucha, Francis Paul. The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991. Web.
Tate, Michael L. “From scout to Doughboy: The National debate over integrating American Indians into the military 1891-1918.” Western Historical Quarterly, (1986): 434-35. Web.
Utley, Robert M. Indian-United States Military Situation, 1848-1891. Smithsonian Institution: Smithsonian Institution, 1988. Web.
Footnotes
1 Camurat, Diane. The American Indian in the Great War: Real and Imagined (1993).
2 ibid
3 ibid
4 Finger, John R. ” Cherokee Americans: The Eastern Band of Cherokees in the Twentieth Century ( Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), 43.
5 Camurat, Diane. The American Indian in the Great War: Real and Imagined (1993).
6 ibid
7 ibid
8 ibid
9 Britten, Thomas A. American Indians in World War I: at home and at war (University of New Mexico Press, 1998).
10 ibid
11 Boston Hampton Committee. A Brief Sketch of the Record of the American Negro and Indian in the Great War. The Committee (Boston:Boston Hampton Committee, 1919).
12 Hertzberg, Hazel W. The Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern Pan-Indian Movements (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1972).
13 Prucha, Francis Paul. The United States Government and the American Indians. (Lincoln :University of Nebraska Press, 1991).
14 Bernstein, Alison R. American Indians and World War II. (Norman & London :University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).
15 Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The American Indian and the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Random House, 1973).
16 Camurat, Diane. The American Indian in the Great War: Real and Imagined (1993).
17 Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
18 Tate, Michael L. “From Scout to Doughboy: The National Debate Over Integrating American Indians into the Military 1891-1918.” (Western Historical Quarterly, October 17 1986) 434-35.
19 ibid
20 Barsh, Russel L. “American Indians in the Great War.” Ethnohistory, (1991).
21 American Indian Y.M.C.A. Bulletin. “Lessons from Army Life.” (1919) 2.
22 French, Warren. The ‘Lostness’ of a Joyless Generatio. (Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne nouvelle, 1993).
23 Prucha, Francis Paul. In Documents of United States Indian Policy (Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1975).
24 Commissioner of Indian Affairs Report. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians (Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press , 1984).
25 Mails, Thomas E. Fools Cro. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979).
26 Department of the Interior. Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1918).
27 Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian (Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984).
28 Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian (Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984).
29 ibid
30 Hagan, William T. United States Indian Policies, 1860-1890 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1988).
31 Hoxie, Frederick E. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
32 Utley, Robert M. “Indian-United States Military Situation, 1848-1891.” In History of Indian-White Relations, by Wilcomb E Washburn and William C Sturtevan (Smithsonian Institution: Smithsonian Institution, 1988), 175-76.
33 Pruncha, Francis Paul. Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the Indian,” 1880-1900. (Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1973).
34 Hertzberg, Hazel W. “Indian Rights Movement, 1887-1973.” In History of Indian-White Relations, by Wilcomb E Washburn and William C Sturtevant (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1988),305.
35 Delanoë, Nelcaya, and Joëlle Rostkowski. Les Indiens dans l’Histoire américaine (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1991).
36 Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians (Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984).
37 ibid
38 Kelly, Laurence C. “United States Indian Policies, 1900-1980.” In History of Indian-White Relations, by E Wilcomb Washburn and William C Sturtevant (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1988),66.
39 Kelly, Laurence C. “United States Indian Policies, 1900-1980.” In History of Indian-White Relations, by E Wilcomb Washburn and William C Sturtevant (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1988),66.
40 ibid
41 ibid
42 Hertzberg, Hazel W. “Indian Rights Movement, 1887-1973.” In History of Indian-White Relations, by Wilcomb E Washburn and William C Sturtevant (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1988),305.
43 Hertzberg, Hazel W. “Indian Rights Movement, 1887-1973.” In History of Indian-White Relations, by Wilcomb E Washburn and William C Sturtevant (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1988),305.
44 Camurat, Diane. The American Indian in the Great War: Real and Imagined (1993).
45 Commissioner of Indian Affairs Report. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians (Lincoln &London: University of Nebraska Press , 1984).
The Russian Revolution of October 1917 is the most important cause of change in Russia. It also the origin of the country’s modern political and socioeconomic system (Acton, Cherniaev & Rosenberg, 2007). Scholars argue that Russia’s involvement in the First World War and the economic consequences are the primary causes of the revolution.
However, a number of long-term ands short-term factors equally contributed to the revolution (Lincoln, 2003). This paper argues that although the First World War triggered the revolution in Russia, the revolution could still have taken place even without the war, but after several years.
A number of socioeconomic and political factors creates tension in Russia
According to scholars, there are four main causes of the Russian revolution. First, the country’s economy was destroyed by the involvement in the First World War. Secondly, the army experienced massive cracking morale and poor funding due to poor military handling and management (Acton, Cherniaev & Rosenberg, 2007).
Thirdly, the autocratic rule of the Tsar brought with it massive scandals and poor administration of public money. Finally, scholars argue that the collapse of the Russian old order as well as the emergence of a new order triggered the need for a change in generation and socioeconomic system.
Russia seems to have been experiencing a build-up of tension due to the scandals, the autocratic rule and the old order. The First World War triggered the revolution that could have waited years to begin. Scholars have argued that one of the indications that a revolution in the country was inevitable in the 20th century is the fact that by as early as 1905, the country experienced the first revolution, known as the Russian Revolution of 1905.
It is evident that Russians were tired of a 300-year rule of the Tsar. They were eagerly waiting for an opportunity to change the political system (Steinberg, 2001). The events of the infamous Bloody Sunday provide an evidence that even the army was willing to take part in a revolution that would see the country change its political and economic system in order to move along with the dynamisms in the western Europe, especially in Britain and France.
Unlike the other nations in the Western Europe, Russia’s population in the vast rural areas remained predominantly poor. The majority were the poor peasants, with frequent recurrence of shortage of food. The Tsar regime and its autocratic rule were doing nothing to boost food production.
The issue of land ownership remained a big problem among the peasants (Steinberg, 2001). The poor peasants felt that land was supposed to be the possession of those who were working on it. Moreover, there was dynamism in the countryside as people moved from the farms to the industries and from industries to the farms (Lincoln, 2003).
This had been changing the peasant way of life and culture, while information flow was increasingly improving as the people between the cities and the farms were in constant move.
A growing number of peasant villagers were increasingly becoming a new phenomenon both in the industrial cities and in rural towns. These tensions, coupled with the increasing rate of poverty and poor public administration, were increasingly increasing the need for change (Figes, 2004).
In conclusion, it is worth noting that the First World War contributed much to the Russian revolution, but the actual cause of the October 1917 events were the tensions created by the previous dynamism in the social system, the autocratic rule and the increasing number of scandals (Figes, 2004). Evidently, the Russian revolution could have taken place even without the nation’s involvement in the war, but the revolution could have waited until a good opportunity prevails.
References
Acton, E., Cherniaev, V., & Rosenberg, W. (2007). A Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914–1921. London: Bloomington
Figes, O. (2004). A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924. London: Springer
Lincoln, W. B. (2003). Passage through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914–1918. New York: Cengage
Steinberg, M. (2001). Voices of Revolution, 1917. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
The position of France on the eve of World War I can be discussed as rather vulnerable because France was the victim of the exhausting Franco-Prussian War. On the contrary, France’s role to influence the development of the events before World War I was significant because France began to focus on militarisation to gain the necessary revanche (Sondhaus 298). Even though France could not realize any active movements against the European empires independently, France concentrated on supporting relations with Britain and Russia because the combination of efforts was required, and the French resources remained to be the desirable pieces for many European states.
Under such conditions, France focused on renewing its military resources and high position in the political arena. Thus, France chose to follow the path of Imperialism about expanding the state’s influence on the African lands. To overcome the negative consequences of the Franco-Prussian War, France needed to focus on new perspectives for the state’s economic and political development, and such an approach could provide the state with the necessary resources to prepare the revanche.
There were no chances to win the dominating position in Europe without the support of the allies, but it was possible to concentrate on the further protection of the French lands from the foreign invasions (Price 112). As a result, the concentration of France on military activities before World War I in 1914 meant the state’s readiness to participate in the new war.
The reasons of collaboration between Vichy regime and the Nazis during World War II
During the Vichy regime of 1940-1944, the Vichy government was headed by Philippe Petain and Pierre Laval. In their activities, Petain and Laval focused significantly on collaboration with the Nazis to exterminate the French Jews and to promote the Nazi principles in France (Haine 161). The fact of the Vichy regime’s collaboration with the Nazis is a controversial issue that is why it is necessary to determine the specific reasons for the Vichy government’s activities.
Philippe Petain and Pierre Laval, as well as the other representatives of the Vichy government, were reactionaries according to their political views. As a result, these politicians focused more on the development of the authoritarian regime promoted by the Nazis rather than on the development of the republican state. It is important to note that many reactionaries were inclined to discuss the political and economic problems observed in France during the decades as a result of the ineffective republican approaches. The path proposed by the Nazis was discussed as more appropriate for the development of France in the future. That is why collaboration was justified with references to many political reasons (Haine 161). However, the focus on the ideological character of collaboration was even more important.
The appearance of many concentration camps in France, as well as the extermination operations, were the results of the close connection of the Vichy government with the Nazis. The representatives of the Vichy regime stated that the focus on the collaboration with the Nazis could contribute to re-building France as the strong autonomous state developed under the rule of the Nazis (Haine 162). Furthermore, the Vichy regime contributed to reducing the occupation’s severity for civilians because of the focus on civil operations.
President De Gaulle’s change of France’s policy in the Middle East
During the period of his presidency, President De Gaulle focused on changing France’s policy in the Middle East in the 1950s and the 1960s. The most significant changes were observed after 1967 because these changes influenced the further political orientation of the country in the region of the Middle East. During several decades, France supported the intentions of the Jewish people to organize their state.
Thus, France supported the existence of the State of Israel and tried to improve relations with Israel until the late 1950s (Covarrubias and Lansford 27-28). However, President De Gaulle saw the perspectives for the state’s development in supporting the relations with Arab countries rather than Israel. From this point, the support of the Arabs’ initiatives became more obvious even though France still demonstrated the support toward the growth of the State of Israel.
The end of the Algerian War became the trigger to change the course in the orientation significantly. The signing of the 1962 Evian Accords provided a lot of opportunities for France to improve the Franco-Arab relations which needed extensive treatment. That is why President De Gaulle used the opportunity and realized the remarkable shift from orienting to Israel to focusing on the relations with the Arab world.
It was important to state France’s impact in the region, and the relations with Israel could not provide France with the opportunity to support its image in the region. As a result, the shift in the policy orientation became obvious in 1967 when President De Gaulle started to support the openly different initiatives of the Arab countries (Covarrubias and Lansford 27-28). This approach provided President De Gaulle with the chance to stabilize the relations with the Middle East countries and to focus on the Arab sources of support for France itself.
Works Cited
Covarrubias, Jack, and Tom Lansford. Strategic Interests in the Middle East: Opposition and Support for US Foreign Policy. USA: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007. Print.
Haine, Scott. The History of France. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000. Print.
Price, Roger. A Concise History of France. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.
Sondhaus, Lawrence. World War One: The Global Revolution. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.
Roger Chickering examines the comprehensive effects of the World War I on imperial Germany. The author is of the view that the war affected every person in society, irrespective of gender, age, educational background, race and religious affiliation. The book evaluates the role of the military in perpetuating the conflicts, the diplomatic aspects, governmental role, the politics, and the industrial sector.
In particular, the author is more concerned with giving the effects of the war on the German people, unlike other authors who generalize the effects of the war. In this regard, the author reports that the persistent effect of the total war on the underprivileged and the rich was massive. It affected both male and female members of society, the elderly and the youth, farmers and the city-dwellers, Catholics, Protestants, and the Jews.
The book analyzes the role of the military in any war. It states that the war affected the socio-economic and political structures of Germany more than it did in other countries. The first chapter talks about the period in which the war started (The war begins). In the first chapter, the author gives the immediate cause of the war whereby he compares the war with the modern day terrorism that is sponsored by the state.
It started with the shooting of Francis Ferdinand when he had visited Serbia. The incident surprised many in Europe since the Serbia government had been accused of being involved in the death of the heir to throne.
In subsequent subsection, he talks about the spirit of 1914 whereby he notes that the drama and the extravagant expectations of war lent almost mystical status to the spirit of 1914 (Chickering 15). Under the plan section, the author notes that the war was well planned, with many soldiers believing that Germany was superior to other nations, having crashed the French troops in the 1870-71 war.
The second chapter (The war continues) talks about the dynamics of the war as it progressed to the dangerous zones. The author looks at the role of bureaucratic institutions and the industrial sector in propagating the war. From this chapter, it is established that the war could not have achieved its objectives at the start without the support the bureaucrats and the wealthy businesspersons.
The business community provided adequate funds for feeding and paying soldiers while the bureaucrats offered technical support, as well as morale. In the third chapter (The war grows total), the author reports that the war was no longer under the control of the Germany government since it had attracted the attention of other players in the international system.
In 1916, the land campaigns were instituted whereby other races were expected to surrender land to the Germans. This was made possible through Hindenburg policies. At the same time, German troops occupied various parts of Europe while some soldiers took the war to sea. The fourth chapter (The war embraces all), observes how other groups in society, including women and the elderly, were forced to join the war.
At this stage, even the owners of the means of production felt the effects of the war. The fifth chapter (The War breeds discord) proves that the war had become so expensive and costly to an extent that many people were in the process of surrendering. The sixth chapter (The war ends) reports that the German populace could no longer sustain the war hence they embraced peace.
Effects of the War on Germany at Mid War
The author observes that the German empire is one of the empires that lost terribly in the First World War. Germany engaged in the conflict by declaring war on Serbia following the killing of the Austria-Hungary prince. German troops engaged the enemies on both eastern and western. However, the German territory was safe at start of the war.
At some point in 1914, the eastern part was invaded, but the enemies were defeated and the country continued to enjoy peace, even though its troops were at war abroad. Things changed in the winter of 1916-1917 when the British troops attacked several cities in Germany. Germany was faced with severe food shortages since the infrastructure was badly destroyed.
The 1916-1917 winter, also referred to as turnip winter, was the trying moment for the people of Germany since many individuals went for days without food. In 1916, there were two major battles on the western front, which weakened the capability of Germany. The battle at Verdun and Somme had tremendous effects to the Germany since it lost many soldiers and resources fighting the war that it never succeeded.
Germany lost an approximated two-hundred and eighty thousand soldiers at Verdun while an approximated six-hundred thousand soldiers lost their lives at Somme. The loss of soldiers at the two battlefronts demoralized the German people and solders.
In 1917, the German morale was declining since the number of solders lost could not be explained. The country suffered from inadequate work force since few people were willing to engage in war after realizing that it could not be won. At the home front, the war was unsustainable since enemies were attacking from all fronts.
In the same year, Ludendorff claimed that Germany would launch a peace offensive in the west, but the plan was cut short since the allies were very strong. In 1916, the Hindenburg program encouraged people to contribute financially since the country was facing serious financial shortages.
Farmers were forced to give their horses to the military since the supplies from Russia and Austria could not reach the country. In the middle of the war, the British launched an offensive that incapacitated Germany in terms of food supply. The economy of the country went down to an extent that it simply depended on the wealthy for the production of weapons.
With time, church materials were ripped out and would be melted to produce weapons. So many farmers and workers in various industries were transferred to the military, which affected the country’s food supply. The government was forced to come up with a feeding program that would help the poor who could not afford the basic needs.
In Europe, a number of countries faced challenges, as the war progressed since the number of soldiers killed was shocking. Each country, including France, Britain and Russia, lost troops in large numbers.
The war could no longer be sustained and many countries were of the view that the conflict had to be resolved peacefully. Just like in Germany, the populace in other countries was in strong opposition of the war since it affected their normal lives.
Works Cited
Chickering, Roger. Imperial Germany and the Great War: 1914 – 1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.
The Great War had left a lasting impact not only both on the world, in general, and on Europe, specifically. The winning side utterly dismantled the Vienna system of international relations, which was created after the Napoleonic wars and generally preserved for a century. This development owed much to the fact that many of the states previously forming the backbone of this system ceased existing as great powers. Germany lost some of its territories populated with ethnic minorities, such as Czechs or Poles, to the newly-founded nation-states. The multiethnic Hapsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary ceased existing, as the multitude of national states took its place.
Finally, the Russian Empire, unable to withstand the challenges of total war, collapsed in the revolutions of 1917, to emerge as the Soviet Union after losing both Finland and Poland. Thus, the general trend of the after-war years was the dismantling of multiethnic empires and the establishment of new nation-states. However, if Europe became national rather than imperial, imperialism still triumphed in the colonies or under the guise of the League of Nations, with influential ideologies of fascism of communism either endorsing or challenging it.
World War I might have led to the dissolution of the old continental empires in Europe, but this seemingly decline did not affect the colonial empires of Britain and France. If anything, the Great War made colonial empires both larger and more ruthless in their exercise of power overseas. Instead of promoting self-determination in Africa and Asia, as they did in Europe, victorious powers divided non-European territories of the defeated enemies between themselves, as when refusing to return German-colonized parts of China (Karl, 380). The post-war world also supplied the great powers with the new means to extend imperial control.
The League of Nations – the organization, ironically stressing the national principle in its name – became a vehicle for imperialism sanctioning de facto colonial establishments under the guise of the mandate system. British rule over mandatory Iraq proved especially brutal, as the Royal Qir Force used bombarded villages and tribes for essentially policing purposes – “to put down unrest and subversive activities” (Satia, 16). Hence, World War I might have ended the old continental empires of Europe, but imperialism itself still flourished in the old and new forms alike.
One of the notable developments testifying that the influence of imperialism was at its high point after the war was the emergence of the new ideologies stressing the struggle for dominance. Italian fascism was the earliest and one of the most prominent among those, and its main point revolved around the unshakable duty to the state in its perpetual struggle for power with other states. The chief ideologist and the leader of Italian fascists emphasized that the existence of a well-ordered state implies “expansion, potential if not actual” (Mussolini, 13).
As a consequence, the fascist state would not limit itself “enforcing order and keeping the peace,” as in the liberal ideology, but aimed for the successful acquisition of new territories abroad (Mussolini, 13). While fascism declared the realization of human spiritual potential its main goal, the primary manifestation of this realization was to be found in vigorous territorial expansion under the guidance of an imperialist state. Thus, aside from creating the new means of exercising imperial authority, the aftermath of the Great War, but also shaped new ideologies that endorsed imperialism more fully than ever before.
However, World War I also created new challenges to the existing hierarchies of wealth and power, the most notable of which was communism. While the communist ideology, as outlined by Marx and Engels, was already decades old by the early 20th century, it saw little practical application and only offered “purely abstract” answers (Lenin, 18). However, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia created the first state explicitly based on Communist ideology and true to the Marxian vision of “abolishing the bourgeois state” (Lenin, 8).
The Soviet Union did not become a perfect reflection of the Communist Manifesto but was, nevertheless, the first self-proclaimed socialist state “committed to a vague, ambitious, war-conditioned vision of anti-liberal modernity” (Kotkin, 113). Thus, while the Great War strengthened imperialism to an unprecedented degree, it also reinforced the ideologies that challenged the existing structures of power and wealth by raising them from abstract ideas to practical application.
As one can see, World War I not so much eliminated as refashioned the imperialism of old. Although continental empires of Europe dissolved and gave way to the rise of nation-states, colonial empires became stronger than ever. The winners either took the colonies of the defeated powers directly or governed them under the mandates from the League of Nations, which became the new means of exercising imperial authority. Italian fascism, with its endorsement of state-driven territorial expansion, was a new and refined ideological manifestation of post-war imperialism. However, the ideologies challenging the old hierarchies of wealth and power also rose from abstract principles to practical application, as demonstrated by the communism in the Soviet Union.
Works Cited
Karl, Rebecca E. “The Shadow of Democracy.” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 78, no. 2, 2019, pp. 379–387.
Kotkin, Stephen. “Modern Times: The Soviet Union and the Interwar Conjuncture.” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, vol. 2, no. 1, 2001, pp. 111-164.
Lenin. V.I. “The State and Revolution.” Adobe PDF File.
Mussolini, Benito. Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions. Ardita Publishers, 1935.
Satia, Priya. “The Defense of Inhumanity: Air Control and the British Idea of Arabia.” The American Historical Review, vol. 111, no 1, 2006, pp. 16-51.
The great depression in Canada began in 1929 due to the conditions prevailing in the United States. Being neighbors and so closely interrelated both of the countries enjoyed considerable partnerships in the various areas of cooperation. Canadian economy went into tatters and the commodity most affected by the depression was wheat. Wheat is the primary export of Canada was hugely affected and in turn, affected the whole economy of the country. Due to the depression in the United States, the people across the border were not able to buy the wheat produced and cultivated in Canada and as a result, the exports declined.
The investment opportunities swindled to their lowest ebb and the unemployment rose to more than 25 %. Anyhow these conditions were not the result of a single factor but the outcome of a plethora of issues ranging from World War 1 to the conscription, British intervention, and conditions in the US are to be blamed as well. World War 1 started around 1914 and Britain waged it against the axis. Being an ally to Britain Canada had to send in troops to wage the war. This put huge strains on the economy and when the war that was supposed to take not more than 3 months was taking more than three years 1, heads began to rise and people started questioning the conceptuality behind involving the troops to fight somebody else’s war.
By August Britain had declared war on Germany and as part of the conglomerate, Canada was constrained to join. At first, Canadians fought under British command but later Canadian started taking stock of the situation and managed to employ their own strategies through their commanders. Before long it was realized that in order to win the war some policies need to be reconsidered. Such as the policies regarding recruitment and planning. This involved the enforcement of the “Military Service Act” in 1917. This was the basis of Conscription in Canada.
There was fierce opposition to the act from all quarters mostly from French Canadians like Wilfred Bourassa and the rest. Prime Minister Robert Borden was in a quandary about the repercussions until his government collapsed. But Robert managed to unify his party under a partnership with Liberal Opposition and this served him a fruitful purpose. Conscription meant that people were to be drafted out to fight the war. It was due to the shortage of troops that this step had to be taken. English Canadians were in favor of the act but the Quebec Canadians however were not.
The Military Service Act was enforced in 1918, which caused more than 500,000 men to be liable for military duty2. There were however many exemptions and loopholes in the act which exempted almost everybody who would have participated in the war effort. There were widespread riots in Quebec and a lot of people were killed. It was sometime after that the exemptions were lifted and people had to join in, however, only around twenty-five thousand people actually joined the war effort. World War 1 ended in around a year and thus only a handful of Canadians were actually involved in the war effort because of the act. This nevertheless resulted in separations among the Government and in the year 1920, Borden retired and his heir was defeated in the next election. This ultimately ended the crises and steps were taken by the new Government to improve the economy which ultimately resulted in the end of the great depression.
References
Berton, Pierre (1990). Pg no 542-543 – The great depression, 1929-1939.
History of the Canadian Peoples, 1867-Present, Alvin Finkel & Margaret Conrad, 1998, Published by Pelham Books.
From 1890, a new journey aimed at revolutionizing the American social, economic, and political structures began. According to the pioneers of progressivism, American society had been characterized by numerous social and economic problems. The rate of industrialization experienced in the country before the era led to numerous challenges such as corruption, inappropriate leadership, child labor, racism, discrimination, and poor representation. According to progressives such as Ida Tarbell, Jane Addams, and Jacob Riis, the right time had come for America to redefine its future.
Relationship with World War I
To achieve the intended goals, many progressives began by exposing the major evils and challenges that were affecting the United States towards the end of the 19th century. American society was facing numerous evils such as increased cases of immigration, corporate greed, discrimination, and racism. The most appropriate strategy at the time was to redefine and embrace the power of democracy. During the time, Theodore Roosevelt believed strongly that it was the right time for the people to address the problems affecting the nation.
The Progressive Era cannot be studied without mentioning the First World War (initially known as the Great War). The emergence of World War I was a clear indication that social rots and evils were affecting every country across the globe. Before the war, the world had recorded numerous challenges, unrest, and enmities. Throughout the 19th century, the world had come into terms with the unique problems associated with nationalism, militarism, and imperialism. Such concepts catalyzed numerous struggles, especially in Western Europe.
Theodore Roosevelt argued that the right time for America to develop strong and ethical corporations had come. By so doing, the country would find it easier to embrace the idea of democracy. Quality education was supported to deal with racism, poverty, and class warfare. With these developments, the stage had already been set for the First World War.
The First World War was therefore the culmination of the Progressive Era. This was the case because the war was a response to the forces of nationalism and militarism that defined the 19th century. Many analysts have stated clearly that the Great War was mainly aimed at making the world better. Many leaders during the era believed strongly that World War I marked the end of progressivism and created a better society for more people.
Importance of the Era
The implemented agenda encouraged many people in the country to register as voters. By so doing, the people would influence the major issues affecting the country. Many people were willing to fight political corruption and inequality. According to many historians, Progressivism was a long journey that could not end any time soon. This was the case because most of the challenges affecting Americans such as racism and inequality were deeply ingrained in society. Historians argue that World War I indicated clearly that the goals of the Progressive Era could not be easily achieved.
World War I created the best environment for a deadlier global conflict between 1938 and 1945. Although the era ended after the Great War, the agreeable fact is that the goals intended by different progressives would be pursued throughout the 20th century. Consequently, new policies focusing on racism, corruption, and discrimination would be implemented in the United States.
Bibliography
Gerwarth, Robert, and Erez Manela. “The Great War as a Global War: Imperial Conflict and the Reconfiguration of World Order, 1911-1923.” Diplomatic History 38, no. 1 (2014): 786-800.
Johnston, Robert. “Long Live Teddy/Death to Woodrow: The Polarized Politics of the Progressive Era in the 2012 Election.” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 13, no. 3 (2014): 411-443.
Keene, Jennifer. “Americans Respond: Perspectives on the Global War, 1914-1917.” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 40, no. 1 (2014): 266-286.
Platt, Daniel. “Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, by Thomas C. Leonard.” Journal of Cultural Economy 10, no. 2 (2017): 225-229.