Category: World War 1

The period after World War I can be discussed as rather challenging for the development of the countries which were defeated during the war. As the main aggressor, Germany faced the most dramatic consequences of World War I and experienced the political, economic, and social collapse.

The state developed as the superpower before the progress of the war, and the aftermath of World War I for Germany was in the necessity to pay reparations and to realize the required disarmament. From this point, it is necessary to examine the consequences of World War I for Germany and to contrast the aspects of the country’s political, economic, and social development before and after the war.

In spite of the fact that Germany was one of the most powerful European states before the war’s start in 1914, World War I led to the political, economic, and social decline in the country during the early 1920s; the contrast was caused by the inability of Germany to realize its intentions to become the extended superpower while using the means of war and by the inability to follow the conditions mentioned in the Versailles Treaty regarding reparations and disarmament.

How Germany Lost Its Position of the Superpower and Became the Weak European State

The end of World War I was associated with signing the Treaty of Versailles and with the necessary armistice based on a range of stated conditions. The Allied Forces concluded that Germany’s intentions and military actions were the main causes for the progress of World War I.

As a result, the Allied Forces concluded about Germany’s responsibility for compensating the losses caused by the dramatic war conflict and for paying reparations to the countries winning in the war. This decision was one of the main causes for the country’s economic decline during the period of the 1920s.

Furthermore, the costs of the war and human and economic losses should also be discussed as significant reasons to speak about Germany’s decline after World War I. Developing the potential as the European superpower, Germany focused on the war conflict as the way to expand the territories and to gain more resources while occupying the French territories. As a result, a lot of money was spent for mobilizing troops.

The focus on the war became the priority for the German government, and significant material resources were spent to satisfy the needs of the troops. Much attention was paid to the aspects of the mobilization and militarization in order to contribute to the further progress of the German state.

However, the expected results were not achieved. Germany was the economically and socially prosperous state before World War I, but the focus on the war led to the decline in industries and agriculture because of losses in territories and resources. The shift from the superpower to the weakened state was rapid and impetuous, and the defeat in World War I was the main cause for the process.

Differences in the German Economy before and after World War I

Germany was discussed by politicians and economists as the real threat to the stability and power of Britain and France before World War I because of the intensive economic development.

Despite the fact that the history of the united country was extremely short, the economic and political potential of Germany was significant. Thus, the German lands were united in the 1870s to build the powerful state, and the country’s potential was stated during the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s when France was defeated, and new industrial territories were occupied.

During the period before 1914, Germany developed as one of the most powerful industrial states because of the focus on producing steel. Having occupied the defeated French territories of Alsace-Lorraine, the country received a lot of resources to produce steel and to develop different industries during the early part of the twentieth century.

The industrial progress and economic stability led to the development of Germany as one of the main naval European countries. Germany developed its potential as the naval state in several years, and this situation became the real challenge for Britain which took the position as the most powerful naval country in Europe.

The other field for the progress was associated with the development of the German colonies and with the country’s aggressive approach to provide stability in the African colonies and oppress the revolts. Thus, the economic development of Germany before World War I could be characterized by the stable growth and orientation to the progress.

The situation can be discussed as quite opposite while discussing the aftermath of World War I. The defeat of Germany was connected with significant human and material losses, and moreover, the state’s defeat meant that Germany was ordered to pay reparations in more than $30 billion.

Thus, “the Allies made extortionate reparation demands which caused a balance of payments deficit and resulted in a disastrous fall in the exchange rate.” However, according to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany lost the French industrial territories and the other occupied territories that supported the industrial development of the state.

Germany lost such territories as “Upper Silesia, Alsace-Lorraine, the Saar district, most of Posen and part of west Prussia, Schleswig, Danzig, the Baltic part of Memel, the Western frontier districts of Eupen and Malmedy and a small area near Troppau”; and Germany became depended on “foodstuffs and raw material imports, because the regions lost were particularly rich in agricultural and industrial resources.”

Thus, Germany lost 15% of the arable land and 75% of the iron ore deposits. The impossibility to reorganize and restructure industries because of the lack of necessary resources caused the impossibility to pay reparations.

The shift to the new economic order was problematic, and the instability of the German economy along with the growth of the reparation debt resulted in hyperinflation. According to Hetzel, in 1913, “total currency in Germany amounted to just 6 billion marks.” Nevertheless, the situation changed dramatically after the war and in 1923, “a loaf of bread cost 428 billion marks and a kilogram of butter almost 6,000 billion marks.”

It is possible to determine several causes for such economic decline in Germany during the period of the 1919-1923. Thus, the economic cause of hyperinflation was “the monetization of public and private debt by Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank. The political cause lay in the inability of a fragile democracy to impose the taxes necessary to pay war reparations.” Inflation of 1918-1919 became the hyperinflation of 1920-1923, and the extreme measures were necessary to stabilize the situation.

If the period after World War I was discussed as contrasting to the period before the Great War, the situation changed in 1924 when Germany asked the US financial assistance. According to the Dawes Plan, the United States provided the necessary loans for Germany in order to guarantee the payment of reparations.

In spite of the fact the conditions of the plan were rather unfavorable for Germany, this plan contributed to stabilizing the economy, to developing the industries, and to improving the social sphere. $25 billion provided by the United States contributed to the reconstruction of Germany’s status as the economically stable state, but the crisis of 1929 led to one more extreme economic decline.

The Political Situation in Germany of the 1920s in Contrast to the Pre-War Situation

Before 1914, Germany was the imperialistic and autocratic superpower which also influenced the distribution of powers in Europe. The focus on imperialism and militarism was associated with the country’s significant plans to gain the European strategically and economically important territories and to state the political and economic domination not only in the region but also on those continents where Germany had the colonies.

It seemed that there were not boundaries for the progress of the German Empire, and the German monarchy was oriented to dominating Europe as the most powerful naval and industrial state. That is why, the German monarchy chose to focus on occupying more territories and developing the plans for the military invasions.

Nevertheless, World War I caused by the aggressive actions of the German monarchy did not lead to the progress of the state, but instead, the war resulted in the German Empire’s collapse. In 1918-1919, the German state experienced the challenging revolution which symbolized the shift to the new political order.

The Social Democrats became the leading party in the country, and the period of the Weimar Republic began. From this point, one of the main consequences of World War I for the progress of the German state is the shift from the German monarchy to the democratic rule.

Nevertheless, comparing and contrasting the periods before and after World War I, it is important to note that the imperialistic Germany achieved more significant results, and the German monarchy was associated with the idea of the political stability when the first years of the Weimar Republic were associated with the periods of the political and economic instability.

The period of 1924-1929 is often discussed as the ‘Golden Years’ of the Weimar Republic because of the authorities’ reliance on the economic assistance of the United States. However, it is impossible to speak about the political stability in the country during the interwar period because many different parties, including the extremist ones, received the opportunity to enter Parliament and to influence the political development of the country.

This aspect was discussed as positive during the post-war period, but it became the threat for the state’s political stability in the late 1920s. From this point, the German monarchy can be discussed as more stable in comparison with the German democracy of the 1920s.

The Aspects of the Social Life in the Country before and after World War I

In spite of the developed imperialism, the German Empire before 1914 was the prosperous state where the aspects of the social life were closely associated with the continuous economic progress because of the increased industrialization and development of agriculture. On the contrary, the first years after World War I were characterized with references to the destroyed industries, economy, and agriculture. The problems in heavy industries led to the significant unemployment rates, and inflation made the situation worse.

Many people suffered from the lack of money, impossibility to find work, and from drastic living conditions. Although the democratic rule was stated in Germany after World War I, middle and low classes suffered from poor living conditions and poverty more dramatically than during the worst years of the empire’s development.

The authorities reacted to the public’s struggles and focused on the social spending, but this approach led to the increase of the financial debt because of inflation of the German currency. The concentration on the transportation projects and on ways to modernize the low percentage of industries was not effective, the unemployment rate increased, and the municipals’ capitals were not enough to change the situation for better.

The economic problems and the results of the war affected different categories of the German population. Many people lost not only the members of their families and their jobs but also houses. The housing problem was critical during a long period of time, till the housing project was developed during the mid-1920s.

The dramatic consequences of the war influenced the representatives of the upper middle and high classes who became bankrupts because of the hyperinflation; the war affected workers and representatives of the lower classes who became suffering from unemployment, inability to work in industries, and from the housing problem; and the aftermath of the war was also dramatic for farmers because the whole system of agriculture was destroyed because many economically significant lands were given up.

The situation began to improve in 1924 when the first financial resources were received as the US assistance for Germany. The introduced social reforms contributed to improving the population’s living conditions.

Furthermore, the programs for overcoming the unemployment problem were implemented along with the multiple housing programs which were worked out because of the necessity to create the stable situation for the society’s development. However, the progress was not long, and the crisis of 1929 threw all the social achievements back to the post-war period when the social life of the German population was described as full of sufferings and challenges.

Conclusion

During the period of 1870-1914, Germany was the prosperous empire which used the imperialist approaches in order to state its domination in Europe. In spite of rejecting the principles of democracy and the active use military means, Germany was described as the superpower because of the stable political approach to resolving the challenging situations and because of the focus on the economic progress. Germany concentrated on the industrial development and became the powerful naval state. The opposite situation is observed during the period of 1918-1923.

World War I influenced the development of the German country significantly, and the effects were negative because the war led to the challenging revolution, to the significant losses in human and material resources, and to the obvious economic ad social decline. From this point, the focus on expanding the state’s impact in Europe led to the great military conflict and to the dramatic negative consequences for Germany because the empire was defeated and ordered to pay significant reparations to the winning countries.

References

Braun, H. (2012). German economy in the twentieth century. USA: Routledge.

Hetzel, R. (2002). German monetary history in the first half of the twentieth century. Economic Quarterly, 88(1), 1-35.

Owen-Smith, E. (2002). The German economy. USA: Routledge.

Retallack, J. (2006). The German Right, 1860-1920: Political limits of the authoritarian imagination. USA: University of Toronto Press.

Temin, P., & Toniolo, G. (2008). The world economy between the wars. USA: Oxford University Press.

The 1919 Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty that put an end to World War I (WWI). At the time, the United States was led by President Wilson, who, prior to the US entry into the war, aimed at making peace “without victory.” A year before signing the treaty, Wilson delivered a speech in which he listed Fourteen Points that signified the country’s objectives following the conflict resolution. Among them, the president named the recovery of the European economy, self-determination of European and Middle Eastern ethnic groups, the fostering of free trade, and the creation of institutions, such as the League of Nations, to promote global peace. It should be said that the US participation in WWI changed its course, but at the same time, WWI transformed the US and impacted its new vision as a guardian of democracy around the globe. Though hoping for peace, after WWI, the United States was still aware of the German threat and, hence, prepared accordingly.

Since the formation of the Republic, American political and military leaders have worked relentlessly on improving army organization and ensuring the country’s independence and security against foreign forces. Gentile, Linick, and Shurkin single out four important periods in the evolution of the US army: Constitutional moorings and the 19th century, the Spanish-American War to Total War, and the Korean War to Total Force Policy. In accordance with this classification, it is safe to assume that the roots of post-WWI US military politics date back to the Spanish War. The ongoing conflict provided an impetus for improving various aspects, such as training, equipment, and on-site medical help. The early 1900s were also the time when the debacle between the Regular Army and the National Guards.

An important milestone of the post–Spanish-American War military reforms the 1903 Act to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia, and for Other Purposes, often referred to as the Dick Act. The new legislation required the states’ National Guards to recreate the “organization, armament, and discipline” identical to those of the Regular Army. In short, in 1903, state militia received federal recognition and became a reserve for the Army. Fast forward to 1916 the government passed the National Defense Act (NDA), whose main purpose was to mobilize the country’s reserves and make them apt for “industrial-era expeditionary warfare.” The act recognized that the National Guard units of the several states as a component of the US Army, provided their federalization. The further step was taken in 1933 when a new amendment emphasized the importance of the “raise and support armies” clause over the militia clause. From then on, the National Guard had to serve the role of an Army reserve at all times, though mainatining its ties to specific states. All in all, post-WWI politics continued the trend toward building up military power through extending, training, and educating reserves.

During the 1920s and the 1930s, the United States military Joint Army and Navy Board introduced color-coded war plans, in all of which the country referred to itself as “blue.” War Plan Orange refers to the totality of war plans that entertained the possibility of a military conflict with Japan. Establishing itself as a world superpower came with its own set of risks for the US, such as having almost 7,000 miles of coast stretching from San-Francisco to the Philippines. The only way to defend itself against Japanese aggression was to develop sea power and the Navy and, what is as important, to ensure constant cooperation between the Army and the Navy. In short, War Plan Orange suggested that American forces would be relieved in Guam and the Philippines and later blockade the Japanese home islands. Before its adoption in 1938, the plan had been in the makingsince 1919. In two decades, the world had seen many technological advances, including submarines, air support, and aircraft carriers, which was something that the plan failed to foresee.

War Plan Red, also referred to as the Atlantic Strategic War Plan, was developed by the United States Department of War during the same period (1919-1939). The plan hypothesized a war with the British Empire (the “red” forces), which, according to estimations, could happen simultaneously with the Japanese invasion. War Plan Red paid special attention to British territories, such as Newfoundland (coded “Red”), India (“Ruby”), Canada (Crimson), New Zealand (Garnet), and Australia (“Scarlet”). Because the Atlantic Ocean was separating the British Empire from the United States, it was established not to carry out any attacks outside the Western hemisphere. Instead, the United States planned to conquer Canada and use it as a strongpoint in all further negotiations. War Plan Red did not imply explicit military conflict; it rather focused on meddling with British-Canadian trade by keeping the US fleet in the western North Atlantic.

As for Germany who eventually become the main aggressor in World War II, the United States did not have a particular scenario for if the Western European country starts a conflict again. War Plan Black referred to the US plan to fight Germany in the early 1900s and World War I. The tangible scenario was Germany’s seizure of French possessions in the Caribbean and attacks on the East Coast. Because Germany lost World War I, War Plan Black became irrelevant. However, it was not to say that the US seized to see the Western European country as a global threat. During Treaty of Versailles negotiations, the US was against Britain’s and France’s intentions to annex German lands. President Wilson saw it as a violation of human rights and suggested that the two winners enforce the right of the native populations to self-determination. In other words, the US was well-aware of Germany’s possible retalization due to its tremendous politcial and economic losses resulting from World War I.

In contrast, it was the United States that economically benefitted from World War I. Even though partaking in the war cost the country around $32 billion, mobilizing industries opened up new prospects for Americans. What helped with post-WWI industrialization is the 44-month period of neutrality during which the US was selling goods for the war to Europeans. The war also created jobs both in the military, the government, and manufacturing, which explains why by 1918, the unemployment rate in the US had plummeted from 7.9 to 1.6%. It is said that WWI set a precedent for centralized economic planning because wartime required reallocation of all kinds of resources.

The 1920s were a decade of unprecedented economic growth as the US was establishing itself as a world power to be reckoned with. During this decade, the economy grew by 42% while per capita GDP surged from $6,460 to $8,016 per person, though economic prosperity did not benefit all members of society equally. World War I wreaked havoc on manufacturing in Europe, which made the US the world’s leading producer of consumer goods. The abundance of the latter was also ascribed to technological advances and inventions that characterized the era. For instance, the adoption of electricity changed Americans’ way of living as it affected transportation, entertainment, housekeeping, and communication. At the same time, the share of farming in GDP declined from 18.2 to 12%. Most likely, it is this shift in global power that allowed the US to transition from a traditional to a free market economy.

The economic boom of the 1920s served as a veneer for the actual weaknesses of the system. It was in the 1930s that the US experienced an economic downturn, also known as the Great Depression. A worldwide trend, the Great Depression hit the United States the most. The consequences included a 47% decrease in the industrial production, a 30% decline in gross domestic product (GDP), and soaring unemployment rates. All branches suffered from recession, military included because many veterans found themselves indefinitely out of work.

The question arises as to how military policies and economic changes impacted the country’s readiness to become involved in World War II. It should be said that many Americans lamented the losses the US suffered in World War I. Essentially, President Wilson’s stance reflected the prevailing public opinion as Americans leaned toward neutrality and isolationism. However, World War II was imminent, and the US had to face it well-prepared. It appears that military reforms dating back to the early 20th century positively contributed to the formation of the Army. They created a track for volunteers wanting to joining the military forces as well as set out standards for training that were later used at boot camps. In 1939, the Army barely counted 174,000 people, but during World War II, it was expanded to include around eight million trained men and women. Despite the hard hit of the Great Depression, the US industries were still in a better position than their European counterparts, which also added to the country’s general preparedness for military conflict.

World War I was a turning point in the history of the United States. Following it, the US emerged as a new global superpower that other countries had to reckon with. After signing the Treaty of Versailles, the US prioritized peace, which, however, did not prevent it from developing contingency plans. Color-coded war plans set out various scenarious of fighting the British Empire, Japan, and Germany. The two decades between World Wars were contrasting in terms of economic prosperity. Despite the Great Depression, the US still faced World War II preparation, which could also be ascribed to the series of military reforms that aimed at the expansion and the mobilization of the Army.

Bibliography

Gentile, Gian, Michael E. Linick, Michael Shurkin. The Evolution of US Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present. California: RAND Corporation, 2017.

Gordon, Robert J. The Rise and Fall of American Growth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2016.

Keene, Jennifer D. The United States and the First World War. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Lewis, Adrian R. The American Culture of War: A History of US Military Force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Rockoff, Hugh. Until It’s Over, Over There: The US Economy in World War I. No. w10580. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004.

Even though the boundaries set during the Congress of Vienna endured relatively unchanged for about 40 years, the results of the treaty were unacceptable to all of the participants. Europe was a hotbed of political unrest and several internal revolutions followed, including the 1830 uprising in Paris, the 1825 Decembrist Revolt in Russia, and the Austrian Revolutions of 1849. The west was becoming more liberal, while the east moved to the conservative. The internal political unrest within European countries and the tendency toward expansion created a stressed environment resulting in several wars. Most of this was expressed on the foreign colonization front, rather than in Europe, but there were exceptions.

“France and Britain blundered into war with Russia in 1854 through a series of tragic misunderstandings, the responsibility for which was shared by all the governments concerned.” (Bruun, 1960, p. 93) Tsar Nicholas moved into Moldavia and Wallachia and secret accords with the Austrian and British governments for the disposition of the Ottoman empire were formulated in 1844 in London. These collapsed in March 1853. French interests were disregarded Britain pulled out partly because certain points were still not clear, but mostly to appease France. Nicholas could not retreat with dignity, since his army was already on the Turkish border. In July 1853 the Russians took the Danubian Principalities, and in September the British fleet moved on Constantinople. Then the Turks declared war on Russia, and allied navies entered the Black Sea. On 28 March 1854, France and Britain declared war on Russia. Nicholas withdrew from the Danube, but the Allies marched to the Crimean peninsula and attacked Sevastopol. In December 1854 Austria joined in, and the siege of Sevastopol forced the evacuation of the city on 11 September 1855. Nicholas, I died in March 1855 and Alexander II accepted peace terms at the Congress of Paris, 25 February-30 March 1856. As a result of the shamefully inadequate medical treatment on these battlefields, 80% of the deaths were from disease. When this was made public, policies were revamped.

The Italian War of 1859 raised national aspirations and roused the Poles to revolt in 1863; the Danish monarchs wanted to consolidate their realm, and culminated in the Danish War of 1864; and Prussian plans called for the unification of Germany, which caused the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Bismarck of Prussia established cordial relations with Russia and concluded an alliance with Italy in April 1866. Then Prussia moved troops into the duchy of Holstein in June 1866. Most of the German states were on the Austrian side. However, in Prussian military moves, Moltke destroyed the Austrian army in Bohemia at Königgrätz in July 1866. Prussian breech-loading rifles outshot Austrian muzzleloaders, and Moltke moved troops very quickly using the railways. The Austrians were also busy with the Italian army, and their victory came too late to get the troops back in time to fight off Prussia. The treaty of Prague on 23 August 1866 ended the German Confederation, and Austria was excluded. All northern states joined a North German Confederation under the Prussians, but south German states remained independent.

The French emperor, Napoleon III, declared war on Prussia on July 19, 1870, because he was advised that his army would win and make him popular in France once more. The Franco-Prussian War turned France into a republic, and Germany became an empire. Leading German princes acclaimed William I of Prussia as German emperor in the palace of Louis XIV at Versailles ( 18 January 1871) while the guns were still firing. The new empire was the North German Confederation of 1867, with the four south German states ( Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden and, Hesse–Darmstadt) added. This was Bismark’s opportunity to create his great German empire and the first step on the road to World War I.

France endured another crushing defeat, and from 1871 to 1914 an extremely unstable peace endured. France was driven thereafter by the need to recover Alsace-Lorraine and Germany once again had imperialist ambitions. World War I was partly a continuance of this grievance.

All these little wars were costly and served to exacerbate the problems left by the unsatisfactory conclusions of the Congress of Vienna. It simply held off inevitable war. However, each war had its lessons, for good or ill, and while they did not change the borders much, they changed the character of war.

References

Bruun, G. (1960). Nineteenth-Century European Civilization, 1815-1914. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008. Web.

Franco-German War. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition: Web.

Taylor, A. J. (1950). From Napoleon to Stalin: Comments on European History. London: Hamish Hamilton. 2008. Web.

The USA entered the war in 1917; before that, it remained neutral. President W. Wilson, concerned about its possible adverse consequences for the United States in dragging out hostilities, tried to appear as a mediator between the warring countries. His peacekeeping efforts were unsuccessful, mainly because both sides did not lose hope of winning the decisive battle. The United States is believed to have entered the war after sinking the American liner Lusitania by a German submarine in 1915. However, other important factors influenced the United States to enter World War I in 1917.

Political factors include Wilson’s desire to get a seat in the post-war negotiations to promote his idea of ​​the League of Nations. Without the war, these ideas would not have been heard by the countries of Europe. It is assumed that the US desire to become a “world power” also became the reason for entering the war (Stevenson 23). Having entered in 1917, the United States possessed enormous power and strength and had every chance of implementing its plans. Analyzing the economic factors of entering the war, the situation that developed in Atlanta can be noted when the United States took its side. The United States began to provide loans to its allies at a reasonably high-interest rate. Such a move will give the country a chance to generate income in the future and have some influence over the debtor countries in the present.

Thus, having entered the First World War shortly before the end, the United States of America became the world leader in all respects. Due to the competent actions of President W. Wilson, the USA was able to achieve some of the goals set before its entry. The war events served as a turning point that marked the end of the modern era and made radical adjustments to the economic and political world order.

Work Cited

Stevenson, David. 1917: war, peace, and revolution. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Introduction

According to (John, 2003), after the First World War, America underwent several changes that were mainly aimed at recovering what had been lost in war. Americans who had kept neutrality before engaging themselves in war were not pleased with the outcome of war and decided to keep peace once more. Among the various changes underwent by America during their recovery period in the 1920s were changes in culture, economy as well as in the workforce.

Changes That Took Place in America after the First World War

The changes that took place in America after the First World War began with the election of a new president. At that time, Wilson was not in a position to run for presidency because, he had stroke. The main presidential candidates were Warren Harding and James Cox. Most Americans had been fed up with war which made them out rule Cox for presidency because; he was Supporter of the former president. Harding was therefore Americas preferred candidate since he argued that, America should focus on issues that were directed at developing the economy and not solving problems beyond its borders. There were also changes that took place in the American economy such as removing restrictions in the manufacturing companies. Therefore, the government seized to control industrial production, shipping as well as operations of railways. This improved American economy through allowing most industries that were previously involved in supplying ammunitions to produce other products. Better roads were constructed so as to allow transportation of products to the markets. Demands made by American drivers were more than they were before the First World War which led to construction of more and better roads (John, 2003).

According to (Robson, 2007), the workforce of America underwent great improvements due to advancement in technology which led to innovation. Most Americans acquired the new technology which was mostly applied in the manufacturing of automobiles. As a result, affordable cars were made which created more employment to American people due to high levels of specialization involved in the assembly of cars. More businesses were also opened alongside the new roads that had been constructed to cater for the large numbers of car. The new businesses called for more people to work, thereby increasing the country’s workforce. The press also benefited from the new technology as more radio stations were opened leading to demand for more workers.

Culture which was portrayed in the lifestyles of Americans after the First World War underwent some changes. These changes resulted from economic as well as technological changes. The manufacture of affordable cars allowed more people to own cars which made more families shift from towns to live in the farms. Also, traveling for leisure was made easier, as families used their car which was not the case before, to explore and visit several parts of the country. Improvements in economy and workforce allowed Americans to enjoy a better life which was characterized by more luxuries (Robson, 2007).

Conclusion

Although they had won the battle against Germans, Americans had a lot to learn from damages caused by the First World War. Their fellow Americans had lost their lives in war as they tried to solve problems that were beyond its borders. Therefore the changes that took place in America were directed to making it a better country which was led by Harding, their new president. Those changes were noticed in several areas among them being culture, economy and workforce (Robson, 2007).

References

1. John A. (2003): Reformers and War: Cambridge University Press pp. 45-50
2. Robson S. (2007): The First World War: Pearson Longman pp. 34-36

During World War I, the federal government of the United States expanded its bureaucracies. In particular, the state created a variety of temporary agencies that were needed for the effective support of the U.S. Army. Apart from that, the country assumed a rigid control infrastructure and industrial production.

This result was achieved with the help of various laws and regulations. Moreover, the state acquired the authority to limit the freedom of an individual. This process had long-term implications that can still be observed in modern American society. These are the major questions that should be discussed more closely.

The period between 1914 and 1918 was marked by the increased role of the federal government in the United States and the dramatic expansion of its bureaucracies. This paper is aimed at discussing various examples of this expansion during World War I. On the whole; it is possible to argue that this institution became a powerful agent that could profoundly shape economic activities in the country and control its infrastructure.

To a great extent, this goal was achieved by creating new governmental agencies or adopting new regulations. More importantly, the government acquired the authority to suppress the individuals who opposed its policies. These are the main aspects that should be examined in greater detail because the legacies of this period are still noticeable in contemporary America.

First, it should be noted that the federal government assumed a much stronger control over industrial production and agriculture. This step was critical for the support of the U.S. Army that had to carry out large-scale operations in various regions of the world. Moreover, the state nationalized some of the major railroads because, in this way, they tried to ensure the effective transportation of raw materials needed by the military personnel.

To a great extent, this policy was supposed to adjust the American economy to wartime needs. This is one of the points that can make. Furthermore, one should mention the establishment of the War Industries Board, which was an important federal agency that was responsible for the supply of the U.S. Army.

Furthermore, the federal government began to play a more active part in the financial life of the country. For example, one can speak about the emission of liberty bonds that helped the state to finance the long-term military effort of the American government.

One should also keep in mind that the state attempted to influence public opinion. For example, the government established the Committee on Public Information. It was responsible for the creation of propaganda which could prompt people to form a favorable opinion about the policies of the state. One of its major objectives was to show that the United States had to become involved in this military conflict. The existence of such an organization was unprecedented before the start of World War I.

The major trend that could be observed during that period was the creation of many temporary agencies which were vital at the time when the American government had to operate oversees. Among them, one could distinguish Food Administration, which worked closely with the U.S. Army. On the whole, these examples suggest that the expenditures of the Federal Government rose dramatically.

Apart from that, the number of workers employed by the federal government also increased significantly, and this trend was not reversed after the war; instead, it only intensified. This is one of the key details that can be distinguished.

Moreover, it is critical to speak about the adoption of the Sedition Act in 1918. This law enabled the government to prosecute every individual who could be critical of the American government and foreign policy during World War I.

Therefore, the government dramatically increased its authorities, especially its ability to limit the freedom of expression. This is another trend that should not be overlooked because it indicates that wartime emergencies can make the government virtually omnipotent. So, it was not easy for a person to protest against the state and the decisions of policy-makers.

It is critical to remember that the regulations which emerged during this period remained after the end of this military conflict. For example, one can speak about the regulation of railroads. This is why the legacies of this period should not be disregarded. Moreover, since that time, the size of the federal government did not decrease. To some degree, these legacies continue to shape the life of American society, especially if one speaks about the growing number of federal agencies regulating the work of various industries.

On the whole, this discussion indicates that during World War I, the federal government dramatically increased its influence on economic and public life. The government created a set of institutions and enacted various regulations that profoundly influenced the activities of various businesses and individuals. There were various temporary agencies to support the needs of the U.S. Army. Nevertheless, the federal government only continued to grow after this war. These are the main issues that can be singled out.

Industrial revolution between the end of 19th century and 20th century influenced greatly the state of war that unfolded. The historic period was characterized by improvements in machinery and tools used in production industries. The first war that was fought in the onset of twentieth century was the World War 1 (WW1), which was fought from 1914 to 1918 and whereby Great Britain, France, Russia, Belgium, Italy, Japan, United States of America and other supporting nations overpowered Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.

This war was started by an act of assassination that was perpetrated by Serbian citizen to an Austrian in June 1914. This action triggered anger in Germany and its allies which made them to first confront Belgium and the war spread to France.

As the war intensified, other countries that had an alliance with Belgium, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States joined forces to fight Germany and its supporters and WW1 went on till 1918 when Germany at last conceded defeat.

This set the stage for the rethinking of strategies used in various economies with regard to enhancement of industries and community welfare in the affected regions. With the beginning of industrial revolution, factors such as technological inventions and advancements sprung up and played key roles in the way the war was fought.

Revolution of the industrial sector facilitated a lot with regards to tools and equipments required in sustaining the intensity of war. Besides, knowledge from European nations were transferred to the US by industrialists who were determined to expand their skills in a more diverse business environment (Veblen, 1990).

The industrial revolution that started between mid 19^th century and the onset of 20^th century highly contributed on the manner in which many things were done within this period, such as the warfare. There were technological improvements in industry and agriculture which resulted in the changing of the warfare.

Some significant changes happened rapidly, such that the ones involving inventions in industry, science, and technology (Landauer, 2009). The availability of efficient technologies in agricultural and textile industries enabled people in Europe and America to enhance and sustain their requirements in the light of the effects of WWW1.

These innovations facilitated the making of many weapons that were far better in aspects such as accuracy, power, and range compared to the old traditional weaponry that was used in the earlier years.

Many problems were born with the springing up of new weapons and war tactics since it was very hard for the military to switch to the new system and it also became overwhelming. Countries such as America saw the culmination of the crude traditional weapons and mode of warfare to the adoption of new machinery and inventions of war facilities, just like the Europeans did (Landauer, 2009).

During the last period of the 19^th century all the way to the early 20^th century, Europe and America experienced revolutions in communication, transportation and weapons which were very crucial particularly in the manner in which war was engaged.

With the escalation of technological innovation towards the end of 19^th century and the beginning of the 20^th century, more things were developed. Some of these advancements include electricity which was put in use in the mines, submarines and invention of wireless telegraph. These developments were so instrumental especially in the warfare that happened in the initial years of 20^th century such as the WW1.

For instance communication in the wartime which was made more efficient by the telegraphs and the submarine cables were now available. Other developments included making of internal combustion chambers that were meant to improve transportation in wars such as making of tanks and aircrafts (Veblen, 1990). There was also the invention of rubber tire that was used in the motor transport.

First World War unfolded at a time when technology and science had really integrated in the sense that in both Europe and America, industrial revolution had put into place war facilities that had an incredible power and performance. The technology that was used in this war was relatively far more advanced and complicated than the one used in the wars that had been fought in the earlier times before the industrial revolution.

An example of the new facilities that greatly dominated during this war were railroads which were more convenient and efficient, swift communication, availability of better and intricate logistics, motor vehicles, airplanes, tanks, explosives, sea facilities such ships, and submarines (Croddy & Wirtz, 2005).

In essence, this developments put countries that were fighting Germany at a better position such America and the Great Britain since most of these advancements were done there. During this time of war, America which had wholly involved itself in the war benefited a lot.

America took advantage of this unrest to intensively invest in factories that were to be used in the production of food, weapons, vehicles and many other logistical facilities that were needed during the war. At the same time trade between America and nations in Europe that were fighting Germany improved.All these led to an acceleration of the rise of the economic status of these nations and also cemented the rapport between them.

References

Croddy, E. & Wirtz, J.(2005)., Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History, Volume 2. New York: Publisher ABC-CLIO.

Landauer, C.(2009).European Socialism: From the industrial revolution to the First World War and its aftermath, Volume 1 of European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements from the Industrial Revolution to Hitler’s Seizure of Power, Carl Landauer, California : University of California Press, 1959 Original from the University of Michigan.

Veblen, T. (1990). Imperial Germany and the industrial revolution. New York: Publisher Transaction Publishers.

How did WW1 affect Canada negatively? It’s not hard to answer this question. After all, any war has detrimental economical and political effects on participating countries. But there were also positive effects of WW1 on Canada: for example, it helped the country to become independent. Read this free sample essay to learn more!

Positive and Negative Effects of WW1 on Canada

The participation of Canada in World War I had significant impacts on Canadian society, as well as it’s status as a country. The First World War had negative impacts and some positive impacts on Canada (Kinsella 109-118). The question that remains is: Does the negative effects of World War I outweigh the positive effects on Canada?

The positive impacts encompass Canada becoming united and the development of the rights of women. Nonetheless, the war led to great negative impacts such as loss of lives, economic downtrend, and the generation of tensions involving the Francophones and Anglophones who disagreed after the emergence of the notion of conscription. Though the First World War had some positive impacts on Canada, the negative impacts were much greater.

Positive Effects of WW1 on Canada

Rights of Women

In 1914, women in Canada were deemed decrepit and emotional (Braybon 23-25). As Cranny affirms, “Women were not considered persons under the law —unless they committed a crime. Even a woman’s salary was legally the property of her husband” (6). Justice as well as fairness were blind at that time. Attributable to the extant unfairness, women were not given some rights that were given to men, for example, the right to vote (Brown 40-46).

When the Prime Minister tried to enact the Military Service Act that would institute conscription, some people were against this notion; nevertheless, women promised to support conscription on condition that he would give them the right to vote. In that case, Robert Borden accepted the offer, and for the first time in the history of Canada, women were offered the right to vote (just the family members of soldiers) (Quinn and Ascroft 6).

However, the right to vote given to women and their support of conscription just worked to disturb the peaceful coexistence in the country as it created conflicts between the Francophones and Anglophones. Similarly, the gaining of the right to vote by women just gave a false representation of the way life was actually like for the majority of women.

Despite the right to vote, life persisted as before, it was full of discrimination, unfairness, and injustice against women. Women were considered inferior to men, and they engaged in tasks that would not essentially be valued as high-ranking occupations (for instance, nurses and teachers).

United the Country

In the course of the period before the war, the dealings with Britain existed with Canada being a territory of Great Britain. The then Prime Minister, Robert Borden, decided to show that Canada was as powerful as Britain and not just a colony. Thus, Canada ventured into the war in favour of Britain (Cook 5). The majority of Canadian citizens wanted to establish their identity instead of being recognized as a colony.

Amazingly, the war did not weaken the identity of Canada but strengthened the unity of the people. Canada had ventured into the war as different, small, and disunited communities but through the war, the communities merged to attain a common objective. Nevertheless, though Canada had seemed united, it was not the case as the conflicts regarding the issue of conscription divided the people and created hostility.

How Did WW1 Affect Canada Negatively

Conflicts Involving the Francophones and Anglophones

With the support of conscription by the majority, the affiliations involving the English (Anglophones) and French (Francophones) Canadians started deteriorating. The emergence of conscription acted as a hostile wave, as with the issue of conscription, the residents of Canada encountered many crises like the surfacing of conflicts. The Francophones had the conviction that they had a different culture that did not have many connections with that of Anglophones.

They felt no link with Anglophones, thus chose to speak out in opposition to conscription. In this regard, the Francophones were considered disloyal and cowardly by the majority of Anglophones. The violent controversy isolated many Francophones from the federal government, which had gone against its pledge of not supporting conscription. Cranny affirms “The issue of conscription and the bitterness of the debate between Anglophones and Francophones have never been completely forgotten” (55).

Loss of Lives

The loss of lives in Canada in the course of the First World War was incredible (Vance 45-48). About 60,000 citizens of Canada lost their lives, and more than 170,000 other Canadians were physically and psychologically wounded (Cranny 55). In this regard, a number of historians, such as Jonathan Vance, challenge the conviction that World War I was a mark of Canada coming of age.

The historians are convinced that a war that led to the death of tens of thousands and wounding of hundreds of thousands cannot be taken as a positive force in the history of Canada.

They believe that Canadian citizens suffered greatly in the First World War, and a greater significance ought to be attached to this experience. In their opinion, the coming of age acted as a myth in the course of 1920s, as well as 1930s, to alter the pain from the war into a more encouraging occurrence. The myth was intended to assist to repair the nation since believing in it could signify that losses in the war had served a worthy function for Canada.

Economic Downtrend

The economic costs of World War I, in devastation and lost productiveness, were massive (Henderson and Keshen 283-290). Canada’s debt started before World War I and swiftly shot up due to the warfare. For instance, from 1914 to 1915, about 50,000 jobs for Canadian railway employees were lost because of Canada’s railway debts.

Moreover, the Business Profits War Act was enacted in 1916 where every Canadian company that generated at least 50,000 dollars was to file an annual tax return to assist in the recovery of the country’s debt predicament.

After the end of the war, the economy of the nation did not promptly recuperate. Attributable to the war, Canada had to spend more than 164 million dollars every year on payment of its debt, which led to the initiation of income tax (Shaw 398-406). The full amount of debt had escalated to 1.7 billion dollars due to the First World War.

Positive & Negative Impacts of WW1 on Canada

World War 1 had enormous negative impacts and some positive impacts on Canada. The positive impacts include Canada turning into a united nation and the establishment of the right to vote for women.

The negative impacts of the war on Canada encompass resentment between the Anglophones and Francophones due to the issue of conscription, loss of lives, and economic downtrend. Therefore, it is evident that although the First World War had some constructive impacts on Canada, the harmful impacts outweigh the positive ones. Hence, World War I had a negative effect on Canada.

Works Cited

Braybon, Gail. Women workers in the First World War. London: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Brown, Lorne. “Canada’s legacy in World War I: The great war: A crime against humanity.” Canadian Dimension 48.6 (2014): 40-46. Print.

Cook, Tim, and Kathryn Lyons. “Canada and the First World War: A Canadian war museum internet exhibition.” Canadian Military History 17.3 (2012): 5. Print.

Cranny, Michael. Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian issues. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc., 2010. Print.

Henderson, Jarett, and Jeff Keshen. “Introduction: Canadian perspectives on the First World War.” Histoire sociale/Social history 47.94 (2014): 283-290. Print.

Kinsella, Noël, and Charles Robert. “Britain, Canada, and Scotland: Some reflections on the history and practical nature of accommodation.” Britain & the World 7.1 (2014): 109-118. Print.

Quinn, Carolyn, and Sheila Ascroft. “Canada’s armouries: Commemorating the centenary of the First World War.” Heritage 17.2 (2014): 6. Print.

Shaw, Amy. “Expanding the narrative: A First World War with women, children, and grief.” Canadian Historical Review 95.3 (2014): 398-406. Print.

Vance, Jonathan. Death so noble: Memory, meaning, and the First World War. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press, 2011. Print.

George Eastman founded Kodak Company in 1888 with the motto “you press the button, we do the rest,” and designed a simple camera that consumers could use in making photography simpler (Fandel, 2007).

The Eastman Kodak Company has been focusing on photography and has currently added the use of technology in combining images and information in order to alter the ways through which businesses and people communicate.

By 1879, London had become the center of the photographic world such that by 1894, the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company went underway.

The Company has built its foundation on four key principles namely focusing on the customers, executing extensive advertisement, massive production at minimum costs, and enhancing international distribution (Fandel, 2007).

Later, Eastman added the following policies: strengthening growth and development through extensive and continuous research, treating employees fairly, and profit reinvestment for building and extending the business.

The high rate of growth that the Company witnessed made the management use the principle of large-scale production in order to meet all the customers’ needs. The Company also witnessed massive expansion in 1880’s.

For example, it constructed the Harrow Factory in England and established numerous outlets in Italy, Japan, Germany, France, and other European nations (Fandel, 2007).

Fujifilm on its part has been producing photographic films since its establishment in 1934. In addition, Fuji Photo Film Company Limited has diversified its services into new markets hence has been able to build its presence in the entire world.

For instance, in 2006, it transformed Dimatix and renamed it to Fujifilm Dimatix and in January 2013, it established its subsidiaries in Colombia and Panama.

Fujifilm has expanded its services extensively hence becoming an innovative leader in different business fields such as graphic arts, healthcare and optical devices.

This Company believes in using proprietary technology in providing first-class services and products to consumers.

The core reason for operating the business is enhancing the quality of life people in the entire world. Fujifilm focuses on maintaining its sustainable activities in order to realize a society where people’s needs are fully satisfied.

The two companies believe in the influence that continuous innovation has on their operations. For example, Kodak focuses its research on leveraging scientific understanding as a way of comprehending how technologies for film and photographic products operate.

It has worked towards making photography process extremely convenient as a pencil. In 1992, the company introduced a writable CD for its customers.

This device has enabled consumers to store their data such as images, X-ray images, and songs. Kodak used a centralized approach of managing its operations where the management had the final option of whether to adopt the innovative idea or not.

Fujifilm has also made tremendous strides in the innovation path. This Company remained flexible in the innovation field such that by 2010, it overpowered Kodak -the all time Photographic and Camera Company. Fujifilm has been open to new inventions as opposed to its rivals.

For instance, Fujifilm learnt of the probable impacts of the digital age on their analog photographic system and steadily changed to digital photography. The two Filmmakers companies have enjoyed almost 100% monopoly in their home countries, with Kodak in America and Fujifilm in Japan.

The long-time rivalry was intense in the 1990s when Japan and America had trade restriction issues. Kodak was able to keep Fujifilm products off the American market. Notably, when the digital photography came into action, the core businesses of the two companies became obsolete.

However, Fujifilm capitalized on other sectors and built solid profitable businesses, as Kodak remained reluctant to act. Markedly, in the same rough year, Fujifilm managed to make profits of $12.5 billion to Kodak’s $210 million.

On the other hand, Kodak hesitated on accepting the changes in the technological field. The hesitation made the company file for bankruptcy, as it could not compete in the digital market. Fujifilm management process focused on diversification in electronics and healthcare operations.

In Photography and Camera Industry, the Kodak Company of 1900s is comparable to Google of today. However, the rigidity within the management to accept price changes in their services and products made the competitors acquire competitive advantage over Kodak.

Kodak had dominated the industry and did not expect any competition within the industry. This management style is also the cause for slow acceptance for the modern technological applications within the photographic industry (Daft & Marcic, 2010).

Fujifilm had a vibrant and flexible management team that has remained open to accept any technological services that may make them gain competitive advantage over their competitors.

For example, the company re-engineered its films to be compatible with LCD panels for electronic devices like televisions and computers. Even though the advancement to digital photography was gradual, Fujifilm restructured its services and ventured in new business fields.

The company has used over ¥600 billion in acquiring healthcare institutions. In 2000, Fujifilm acquired Toyama Chemical Company at $1.4 billion. The diversification option that Fujifilm adopted has enabled it to make profits at a time when the core business is recording losses.

The company targets to grow by over 30% at an operating profit of ¥185 billion for the 2014 fiscal year. The change of focus at the Fujifilm Company enabled it to thrive at a time when its competitor like Kodak made massive losses. Kodak on its part had remained in the forefront for a long time.

The Quality Policy has guided the company towards success and it has strived to use effective planning measures to improve its performance and the formal system of management.

In addition, the company has been aiming at surpassing the needs of its customers and has been able to increase its presence in the entire global market.

The slow nature of Kodak in adopting new options like diversification is attested to the executive mindset where the management suffered from a mentality of perfect products as opposed to quick high-tech products.

The management also failed to read the trends of the newly emerging markets in China where consumers moved directly from no-camera to digital cameras hence not following Kodak market strategy of purchasing films first.

Fujifilm benefited from this poor strategy by Kodak and made over 55% profits in 2000.

Kodak has remained committed sustaining a safe environment and protecting the health of its employees. Under the Employee Health and Safety, the company has the goal of preventing injuries on its workers.

Kodak has been liaising with philanthropists to assist local communities in Education programs. Kodak in collaboration with the Democrat and Chronicle sponsors the African American History Supplement as a way of appreciating the culture and contributions to America.

The company has considerable respect for the ecosystem and the effects of its products on the environment. The move towards social responsibility made Kodak products become household names in America in the 1900s hence improving its profitability to $900 million in 1994.

Fujifilm Group has well-structured goals on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Some of the divisions include the Green Policy, Biodiversity Guidelines, Social Contribution Policy, and Occupational Health and Safety Policy (Daft & Marcic, 2010).

On the Social Contribution Policy, the company works together with the local communities in the sectors of education, environmental conservation, health, and sports.

Fujifilm involves its employees in communal cleanup services as a way of training the local communities on the significance of a clean environment and appreciating them for their support.

Environmental protection is a global concern that affects all businesses and the involvement of Fujifilm Group improves its image among the consumers.

Further, involvement in social responsibilities and ethical practices increases the safe environmental management practices among the public who will in turn continue purchasing products.

Social responsibilities empower citizens to engage in proper waste management practices hence minimizing chances of improper disposal of the company’s wastes.

The management at Kodak Company Limited has built its reputation on ethical conducts. The first filmmakers company has not placed itself properly in adapting to the new market conditions.

For example, the emergence of smartphones that double as cameras caught Kodak unawares and almost closed the camera-making firm. Again, the replacement of films with digital photography found the company off-guard.

The company’s employees and share price has decreased tremendously since 1990. For instance, the number of employees has gone down by over 85,000 between 1997 and 2012.

Clearly, the introduction of smartphones as replacements for cameras and digital photography for films has rubbed off the company the wrong way (Mintzberg, 2009). However, the management at the Fujifilm Company remains at strategic state in adopting any change in the market.

For example, the digital change in photography in the early 80s profoundly affected the operations of the company. However, the management switched large amounts of money from the film and camera business to other fields due to the changes in the market conditions.

This strategy proved profitable since the entire film and camera business has continued to face difficult times thus recording losses in long-term perspectives.

Moreover, Fujifilm involved itself in job cuts during the global financial crisis of 20008/2009. The moves proved helpful since the company was able to save $3.3 million.

The Kodak Company Limited should adopt the marketing strategies discussed below in order to be flexible in the current dynamic market. The constant changing market conditions require businesses that are also flexible in their operations.

Firstly, Kodak should diversify its services in other fields like electronics and medical. In this manner, market changes in one field will not affect the entire business.

Secondly, the company can adopt a cost-cutting strategy as a way of keeping reserves that can be useful in case the market conditions are not favorable.

For instance, the reserves can assist in meeting some necessary expenses like employees salaries when the consumers buying powers goes down (Mintzberg, 2009).

The third option involves maintaining only half of its employees on a permanent basis while leaving the other half on contract.

This approach will enable the company to revoke the tenure of employees who are under contract in case the market conditions prove unfavorable. The move will assist the company to continue operating as it will have minimized operational costs at the right time.

References

Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D. (2010). Understanding management (7th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Fandel, J. (2007). George Eastman and the Kodak camera. Mankato, Minnesota: Capstone Press.

Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. San Francisco: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

War is one of the most hideous concepts that the humankind has ever come up with. While it is quite understandable that at the current stage of the development of humankind, some conflicts still have to be resolved with the use of coercive methods, war as a massive homicide still remains a truly revolting idea; and nowhere is this confrontation of common sense and humanism as evident as in the artworks of the artists of the WWI period, the time when the entire world seemed to be crashing into little pieces.

The artist whose name seems to be the most recognizable all over the world, Otto Dix and his works seem to be a perfect start for an analysis of the art of the WWI era.

The frightening images in the given picture capture the horror that seized the world as the WWI erupted. It is quite symbolic that the audience cannot see the faces of the people in the picture; however, it is not as much symbolic as the fact that the faces in the picture, with gas masks on them, remind much of skulls, with empty eye sockets looking like hollow tunnels leading to nowhere.

Definitely one of Dix’s strongest works, the given piece of art crosses with an artwork of another famous artist of the WWI era, Max Beckmann. Comparing the aforementioned picture by Dix with Beckmann’s Hell Series seems a touch far-fetched, seeing how the rest of Beckmann’s works are far from being as on-the-nose as any of Dix’s paintings.

However, the Hell Series was created as a response to the WWI events, which makes the given comparison rather legitimate. Unlike Dix, though, Beckmann does not seem to have his signature work, like Dix’s Stormtroops. On the contrary, every single piece of the Hell Series seems a piece of a single entity. Anyway, the Hell represents the author’s vision of the WWII and its insanity.

It is quite remarkable that in the given series, Beckmann avoided using his traditional color palette in several paintings, while in other ones belonging to the series, the color cast was quite aggressive, with a remarkable prevalence of orange and blue color.

The given feature of Beckmann’s works draws the line between his vision of the WWI and the one of Dix; the latter considering war a blood-hungry beats that turns people into machines designed solely for killing, Beckman clearly sees the pain and torture that the nations were going through, as well as the humanist dilemma between the need to protect oneself and one’s family and the ethical unacceptability of a murder, even the murder of an enemy.

The last, but definitely not the least among the artists who made a difference by showing the world the true face of war, George Grosz also had a very distinct way of expressing his attitude towards the WWI. What is remarkable is Grosz’s being a German; therefore, by viewing his works, the audience finally gets to see the response from the other side of barricade.

Weirdly enough, Grosz clearly focused on the bureaucratic implications behind the WWI process. For instance, the ink drawing Made in Germany, as well as Das neue Gesich der herrschenden Klasse, does not display either horror or magnificence; on the contrary, it shows the measly details of the post-war life in Germany, therefore, offering a grotesque vision of the WWI processes.

Despite the common theme, there are a number of differences between the artworks of the three painters, each of them reflecting his own experience and, therefore, personal vision of the war. To start with, the choice of the medium that the artists used to convey their ideas to the audience differs greatly.

While Beckmann definitely preferred oil on canvas, Grosz and Dix clearly trusted in the powerful effect of lines drawn with the help of ink. However, the differences between the three artists are not restricted to the formal elements of the paintings. It is clear that each of the artists incorporated his unique experience to create the paintings, which sets the artworks in question miles apart.

As it has been mentioned above, Grosz was the only one of the three who consciously mocked the meanness of the German bureaucracy of the time (Lazzari & Schleiser, 2011). The given mood in his art can be explained by harsh disappointment, which the artist had to go through after volunteering for the military service. The mockery of the German bureaucracy comes as a result of him being disillusioned. Beckmann’s motivations are a tad more complicated, yet nonetheless obvious.

Having to participate in the WWI, which resulted in him getting injured, he had a very personal hatred towards the WWI and the people who started it (Huppauf, 1997). The given specifics of Beckmann’s vision can be traced easily in his post-war paintings, especially in Hell of the birds, where an individual is being crippled and executed by the crowd. In his turn, Dix indulges into depicting the macabre of the WWI, the revelry of death, which he observed in the Battle of Somme (Tatar, 1997).

When comparing the artworks of the three artists, one might notice that of all three of them, Dix was the only one who was able to see the grotesque side of this macabre, while the other two displayed the horrors of the war with trepidation and dread.

Dix’s attitude towards the war seems to suck out all the emotion from the faces of the characters in his works; instead of portraying dismay and confusion, he left the faces covered, making it sure that the participants of the macabre in his artwork have little to no idea of what they are doing and why they are doing it. A complete loss of humanity and at the same time the hope for humanity is, thus, being depicted in a very graphic manner.

Even though the three artists use completely different techniques, each having his own recognizable style, their paintings share a common idea, i.e., the fact that war is a hideous crime against humanity. With that being said, it must be admitted that the ways in which the three artists envisioned the WWI share the intense feeling of despair and fear.

By far three most influential artists of the beginning of the XX century, Beckman, Dix and Grosz managed to embrace the horror that seized every single human being at the time and depict it in a way that makes the audience literally sense the atmosphere of the 1914–1918.

Reference List

Beckmann, M. (1919). Hell. Web.

Beckmann and Grosz: Selected works (n. d.).

Beckmann, M. (1938). Hell of the birds. Web.

Dix, O. (1924). Stormtroops advancing under gas. Web.

Huppauf, B.-R. (1997). War, Violence and the modern condition. New York, NY: DeGruyter.

Grosz, G. (1921). Das neue Gesich der herrschenden Klasse. Web.

Lazzari, M. R. & Schleiser, D. (2011). Exploring art: A global, thematic approach (4^th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Tatar, M. (1997). Lustmord: Sexual murder in Weimar Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.