World Wars

World War I: Causes And Consequences

General Survey

Serbian hatred of Austria-Hungary was the spark that soon exploded into World War I. Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary was assassinated by Serbian nationalists as he visited Sarajevo in the Austrian province of Bosnia. Austria-Hungary demanded that the guilty persons be punished. Serbia, getting assurance of Russian support if attacked, would not agree directly. France and Britain assured Russia of support. On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Germany pressurised Austria to negotiate, but Russia began to mobilise her troops, sending many to the German border. Germany warned Russia to stop this troops' build-up. The French response to a German request for neutrality was to mobilise. Germany called up its troops and, when Russia still refused to pull its troops from the border, declared war on Russia. Believing France would march to the aid of Russia, Germany declared war on France and marched across Belgium. England having already agreed to protect the French sea coast, now declared war on Germany. On August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. Germany, Austria–Hungary and Turkey faced Russia, France, England and Italy. The World War which no one really wanted was under way.

Nationalism, imperialism and secret alliances had made every major power suspicious and jealous of others. Every nation, including the smallest, was willing to fight whenever a question of its honour was at stake. When every nation tried to take some land or a colony away from the others, honour was always in question. France wanted to take revenge on Germany for its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870–1871, and its loss of the border areas of Alsace-Lorraine. Austria-Hungary resented Russia's growing influence in the Balkan states. England felt threatened by German's new battleship fleet. Italy resented Austria-Hungary from the days before its unification. Russia wanted to be more influential in European affairs, and Germany thought England and France were trying to curb its growing power.

The fight for colonies and the resulting incidents convinced many that only military power could solve their problems. Nations, fearing each other, were linked by secret treaties that dragged all of Europe into the 'Great War'. Germany, realising France was its most dangerous enemy, had marched across Belgium to strike before France could carry out its plans. The powerful German advance was stopped on the outskirts of Paris itself.

The German army raced the British-French army westward toward the Channel, in an attempt to encircle Paris. When both armies reached the English Channel at the same time, the war of mobility was over, and both sides began digging trenches. Frontal attacks against enemy trenches were usually thrown back with terrible losses. Massive artillery shelling and poison gas made each attack even more costly. On the eastern front, Russia rushed its poorly trained, badly armed troops into East Prussia and Austria. Although it held its own against Austria-Hungary, Russia suffered disastrous defeats against the German army.

When the war began, the United States declared itself neutral. As the war progressed, America grew more sympathetic to the Allied cause and became closely tied to the financing and war efforts of England and France. America was also becoming angry about German submarine warfare tactics. Attempting to close England off from the sources of supplies, Germany set out to sink all shipping around the British Isles. As American citizens lost their lives in the sinking, President Woodrow Wilson sent protest notes to the Germans. Finally in April 1917, the US joined the war.

The ever-building power of America's forces turned the tide in the west and after a series of German mutinies and uprisings, Kaiser fled to Holland, and Germany sued for peace. An armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. The leaders of the victorious Allied Powers met in Paris in 1919 to draw up the final peace treaty ending World War I. Germany, which had agreed to peace on the basis of the 14 points set out by President Wilson, expected to take part in the treaty negotiations. Instead, the Allied leaders treated Germany as if it were a conquered territory.

Though Woodrow Wilson had set forth his 14 points as ideals for lasting peace, the other Allied leaders, Lloyd George of England, Clemenceau of France and Orlando of Italy, soon made it clear that they were there to punish Germany and not to seek an ideal peace.

Accordingly, Germany's industrial areas, the Rhineland, Saar, and Upper Silesia, were given to Allied Powers. Other German territory was given to Denmark, Poland, France, and Belgium. The Allies also shared the colonies. Germany was to pay billions of dollars to the Allies for war damages and to give up its shipping and much of its remaining coal production. Austria–Hungary was divided into four small states: Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. Other Austro-Hungarian territory was given to Italy, Greece, Rumania, and Poland. The Turkish Empire was cut up, its territories taken over by England and France. Even Russia, forced to quit the war early, was punished, losing territory to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, and Finland.

Why did it Take Place? Nationalism, especially the negative type, was one of the basic causes of the war. In its early stages, nationalism was an apparently harmless idealistic movement by which state governments were formed so that boundaries of nationalities might coincide with those of political groups. The driving force was primarily defense and self-expression. Nationalism gradually acquired, prominently, aggressive features. Patriotism was glorified as the ideal in churches, in educational institutions and other cultural activities. Narrow and intolerant patriotism shadowed sensible and tolerant moves for the promotion of international good will. The worship of the state by the citizen body enabled unscrupulous leaders to pursue dangerous aggressive policies under the guise of patriotism. Unrestrained nationalism made compromise between states exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, and furnished loyalty for the state and a hatred for the foreigner that led to war.

National animosity is even more dangerous when it becomes racial, as in the case of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. Underlying the whole structure of nationalism in Europe, there had been efforts to unite all Germans and all Slaves.

Germany was advocating the unity of all Germans in the Balkans, while the Russians were preaching Pan-Slavism. Russia backed Serbia in the Balkans, while Germany backed Austria for expansion in the same territory. Even literature became chauvinistic. Writers like H.S. Chamberlain glorified Teutonic supremacy. Rudyard Kipling eulogised British imperialism and the whiteman's superiority.

Closely associated with nationalism, if not actually part of it, was economic imperialism or the rush for colonies. The race for colonies, which would serve as suppliers of raw materials and markets for finished goods, provided one of the most potent sources for international misunderstandings. Businessmen made use of politics to force governments to seek colonies, and territorial expansion was encouraged by patriotic organisations and newspapers. A mad rush for colonies came in the last quarter of the 19th century. England had a major part of the territory available for colonisation. France was a close second, with her African colonies and Far Eastern possessions. Russia had a vast expanse of territory, including a large part of both Europe and Asia.

Germany and Italy were left with no place in which they could satisfy their hunger for territory. The available land for colonisation had been occupied and was in the process of being acquired by other power. However, this fact did not despair the Germans. Germany tried to prevent France from acquiring Morocco. She sought possessions in the Far East and attempted to penetrate the Near East at the expense of England.

The main reason for England's participation in the Triple Entente was to check Germany's economic expansion. Both groups, the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, aimed at economic expansion and furnished one of the primary causes off the conflict.

The most significant international development in the period preceding World War I was the formation of two great alliances: the 'Triple Alliance' and the 'Triple Entente'. They resulted in the division of Europe into two rival camps and paved the way for the outbreak of the Great War. Bismarck masterminded the formation of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria and Italy). After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, he adopted a policy which aimed at keeping France isolated and preventing her from establishing friendly relations with any other European country. He himself, however, formed a Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879. Italy joined it in 1882, making it a Triple Alliance.

So long as Bismarck was at the helm of affairs, he did not allow any country to make friendship with France. When he was compelled to give up the Chancellorship, the men who were appointed to take his place did not have the slightest idea of the character or the purpose of the diplomatic structure that he had built. As a result, France got a chance to establish friendly relations with Russia and even formed an alliance with it, viz. the Dual Entente (France, Russia and England – 1907). The second step was the formation of the 'Anglo-French Entente Cordiale' in 1904, and finally came the Triple Entente in 1907 when all the three parties agreed to complete the diplomatic triangle. The Triple Entente was a response to the Triple Alliance. Later on, Japan joined the Triple Entente, while Turkey joined the Triple Alliance.

At the very outset, the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente were antagonistic to each other. Consequently, even trivial issues produced crises. Each controversy tended to draw the nations one step nearer to the crisis point, and between 1904 and 1914, there was an abundance of such controversies. The first in the series was the Moroccan controversy of 1905, which arose from an effort of Germany to arrest French expansion in Africa. France had the support of her allies, Russia and England. So, Germany was compelled to retreat. In this crisis, the Triple Entente held together, but Germany did not receive any support from either of her allies, viz. Austria and Italy. The second was the result of the annexation of Bosnia by Austria in 1908. Austria and Russia had a secret agreement to the effect that Russia was to help Austria obtain Bosnia, while Austria was to help Russia in acquiring Constantinople. Russian failure to get Constantinople (because of the opposition of England) led her to protest against Austrian action. The alliances held together—Austria was supported by Germany, while France was backed by Russia—but not to the extent of military aid. The third problem was that of Agadir (1911), in which Morocco was again the issue. Germany made a final effort to keep France out, but failed. The fourth crisis was the outbreak of the Balkan Wars in 1912. The Balkan states made a successful attempt to free themselves from the control of Turkey, after which they quarrelled among themselves over the division of the spoils and lost most of what they had gained. The international consequence of the wars rested on the interests that the powers had in the outcome. Austria, supported by Germany, was expanding into the Balkans. The Germans were building a railroad, planned to reach from Berlin to Baghdad, that would enable them to tap the natural resources of Mesopotamia and obtain some of the trade with the Far East.

Consequently, they were interested in protecting Turkey and in suppressing the Balkan states. England opposed German and Austrian expansion, because it was a threat to her interests in the Near East. France supported Russia, and opposed Turkey. This controversy, popularly known as the 'Near Eastern Question', was still unsettled when a Serbian nationalist assassinated the Austrian archduke in Bosnia.

Peace always remained an ideal among European statesmen, but no significant progress was made for realising it. At the Congress of Vienna, the Concert of Europe was proposed to prevent the outbreak of future wars. The Declaration of Paris in 1856 drew up rules to protect neutral trade in times of war. The Hague Conference, called by the Czar of Russia in 1899, was attended by representatives of 26 states. A second Hague Conference (1907) tried to humanise war by the elimination of practices of barbarism. Subsequent history shows how miserably all these attempts failed.

The causes for the failure of international pacifism are not far to seek. Intense nationalism made arbitrations difficult, regardless of how trivial was the dispute. Patriots talked about honor, love of country, etc., and neglected the consideration of the question from a judicial point of view. Territorial disputes hampered the prospects for peace. A number of regions such as Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and the Dardenelles, were sore spots, which refused to heal. Military men and munition-makers, such as the Krupps in Germany, the Vickars in England, and the Scheiders in France, made it a business not only to sell munitions but also to promote war in order to facilitate their trade. These conditions made arbitration and conciliation hard to succeed.

A good index of public opinion and an indication of the general uneasiness in 1914 can be seen in the extent of preparedness on the part of the various states. France and Russia had 22.39 lakh armed men in 1914. The Central Powers, excluding Italy, had 12.39 lakh men ready for service. In addition, France and Russia had 50.7 lakh trained reserves, while Germany and Austria (Central Powers) had 33.58 lakhs. The expenditures for military purposes between 1910 and 1914 reached stupendous figures. France and Russia spent $ 2,320 million, while Germany and Austria made on outlay of $ 1,886 million. A nation armed to the teeth is not likely to be willing to make concessions to an enemy.

The predominant position held by the military class in several countries, such as Germany and Russia, did not lend a conciliatory attitude. Their profession was war; honours and promotions come to military men in times of war, not in times of peace.

The anxiety and suspicion between the already antagonistic groups were increased by secret diplomacy. Most of the existing treaties in 1914 were not on their own aggressive or dangerous, but the fact that their provisions were secret, led opponents to use their fertile imagination as to what they might include. Fear over what the alliance between Germany and Austria might mean prompted France to form an alliance with Russia. Germany was blamed for a supposed understanding with Austria to conquer the world and, especially to destroy France. When the treaty finally became public, long after the war was over, it was found to be essentially defensive rather than offensive.

The assassination of the Austrian Archduke, Ferdinand, by a Serbian nationalist on 28th June 1914 in Bosnia sparked off World War I. At first thought, it looked unbelievable that the death of one man in a remote Balkan town could drag the whole world into life-and-death struggle. The event was the occasion, not the real cause, for the war. Tension had developed to such an extent that only a slight impact was needed to break the slender threads that held opposing factions apart. The time was ripe for the states to capitalise on an accident, to measure swords with opponents whom, they felt, must destroy sooner or later.

How did the War take Place? The war began with the German army crossing Belgium on the way to France. After a few months, Italy left the Central Powers (Germany and Austria) and joined the Allies with the hope of acquiring territories from Austria. Japan also declared war against Germany with the hope of obtaining the German colonies in the East; Turkey, afraid of Russia, joined the Central Powers. In 1916 Rumania and in the next year, China were forced into war against Germany. Even the far away United States was drawn into the conflict in 1917, in spite of the Monroe Doctrine and the time-tested policy of isolation. Most of the Americans initially felt that the war was strictly a European conflict, but economic complexities gradually drew them too into the struggle.

In no time, it was evident that the advance of modern technical science had drastically transformed the nature of warfare. Motivated by the feelings of hate and suspicion, the governments of Europe found themselves with unprecedented powers of destruction and defiance in their hands. The war became a consuming fire round and about the world, adversely affecting both victors and vanquished very disproportionately to the issues involved. The initial stage of the war witnessed tremendous rush of the Germans upon Paris and an invasion of East Prussia by the Russians. Both attacks were stopped and retaliated. Then the power of resistance grew; there was a rapid development of trench warfare until for a time, the opposing armies lay entrenched in long lines across Europe, unable to make any advance without huge losses.

This phase of military deadlock slowly changed into one of aggression upon the enemy population behind the fronts by the destruction of food supplies and by attacks through the air. Further, there was a gradual advance in the size and range of guns employed and of such ingenious devices as poison gas shells and impenetrable tanks to breakdown the resistance of troops in the trenches. The air offensive was the most important of all the new methods. It carried warfare from two dimensions into three.

Hitherto in human history war was fought only where the armies marched and met. Now it spread everywhere. The air offensive took war over and past the front to an ever-increasing area of civilian activities beyond. The traditional division between the civilian and combatant population disappeared. Everyone and everything became a fair game for destruction. The air offensive kept rising in range and terror with every month in the war. At last most parts of Europe were in a state of siege and subject to nightly raids. Cities like London and Paris went through sleepless nights. While the bombs burst, the anti-aircraft guns maintained an unbearable racket, and the fire engines and ambulances rushed headlong through the darkened and deserted streets.

Fighting was formally over in November 1908 when peace was arrived at by both the parties. After a magnificent effort in the spring of 1918 that almost took the Germans to Paris, the Central Powers broke down. Both their spirit and resources were exhausted. Though the Allies had won on the battlefield, an equally bitter struggle had to be fought at the conference table, and years of economic and social readjustment had to take place before the massive impact of the war could be overcome.

What was its Economic Impact? All the production activity, except that which helped war efforts, had come to a standstill during the war. For, all the able bodied men of Europe were recruited in the armies and navies or in the impoverished factories that supplied them. The industry of the world was crippled, and inflation caused financial ruin of several people. Moreover, by 1918, major part of Europe was in a state of severe famine. The production of food throughout the world had decreased rapidly because of the recruitment of peasantry in the armed forces, and the distribution of whatever food produced was hampered by the destruction caused by submarine, by the breach of customary routes through the closing of frontiers, and by the dislocation of the transport system of the world. Governments took control of the falling food supplies and rationed their populations. So, by the fourth year of the war, the whole world was suffering from shortage of clothing and housing as well as food. Business and economic life was in total chaos.

The importance of the economic impact of the war became clear from its destruction of property. The total cost of the war amounted to $ 186 billion. The average daily cost was $ 126 million, or $ 5.25 million an hour, from the declaration of war to the conclusion of the peace. Some of the powers, in fact, had hoped to acquire economic supremacy through the war, but economic chaos came instead, even to the victorious. Russia and Italy from the victorious side and Germany and Austria from the defeated side, for example, were all economically ruined.

Most of the material damage done in Europe during the war, however, proved comparatively easy to repair. By 1922, the production of materials like coal, iron and steel, the output of manufactures, and rail-road mileage were all higher than in 1912. Despite tariff barriers put up by the new states, intra-European commerce had managed an almost complete recovery. Many changes had, of course, taken place. Industries were changing to mass production and wherever possible machines were replacing human labour. Partly due to this, but more importantly due to political changes, the work day was getting shortened. The eight-hour day that had previously seemed to be only an ideal now became a reality.

None of these – neither mass production nor changes in working conditions nor even changes in consumer interests, like the new rage in Western Europe and the USA for new houses and new automobiles — can be attributed to the war. With regard to the economic changes related to the conflict, they emanate from the field of finance. For, the war had one clear outcome: it made North America rather than Europe the centre of wealth.

The war left the European victors indebted to the USA to the tune of $ 10 billion. Moreover, when the exchanges were relaxed in 1919, the British pound lost by one-fifth in value as compared with the dollar, while the franc fell by 50%. The French attempt to extort reparation payments from Germany in particular was partly due to a desire to recover lost ground. The Germans despite pressure, were unable to pay. Inflation resulted in the German mark becoming worthless; it stood at 4.6 million to the dollar in August 1923, and at 4.2 trillion to the dollar in November. An international committee under the leadership of an American, Charles G. Dawes, proposed that a new financial system be adopted by the Germans and that reparations demanded by the Allies be cut down. This Dawes' plan was adopted in 1924. The inflation emptied savings, put great hardships on the German middle classes, and paved the ground for Adolf Hitler's capture of power in 1933. To a limited extent, financial disturbances created hardships for the middle classes all over Europe, and thus strengthened the tendency toward democratic government.

What was its Social Impact? If the war's economic impact was lesser than that expected by contemporaries, its social impact was great and was different from what most people of the time predicted. During the war, there was a large scale replacement of men by women in industry. More than half the people in the combatant countries of Europe changed their employment altogether during the war. They were socially uprooted and transplanted. Education and normal scientific work was limited or diverted to immediate military ends, and the distribution of news was impeded and corrupted by military control and propaganda activities. The effects of the cruelties of the war upon the minds and health of old people and young children were specially painful and destructive. Finally, pestilence, that old follower of warfare, did not arrive until the very end of the fighting in 1918. For four years people were free from any form of general epidemic; then came a great outbreak of influenza which consumed millions of people.

During the war, politicians and publicists spoke of the happy days to come, when there would be no wars, no armaments, no clashes between nations, and no more want. The actuality of the harsh compromise in the treaties, together with continued violence in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East and Asia, mutual distrust among the victors and sharp recession following the immediate post-war boom, all resulted in a widespread sense of disappointment. Some felt that they had been sufficiently Utopian, others felt that they had been impractical.

Still others concluded that the outcome of the war had proved all governments incapable of catering to the interests of common men or had proved man's destiny to be something altogether beyond man's control. From these various moods took birth an increasingly strong pacifist movement; violent and annihilist movements like that of the Nazis in Germany; escapism that gave great popularity to esoteric poets, novelists and painters; and a brooding fatalism had found reflection in such writings as those of Oswald Spengler and Soren Kierkegard.

The war had been modern civilisation's most ugly experience. In some parts of Western Europe, it had taken the life of one young man out of four and in generations that matured in the 1920s and 1930s few could understand for what purpose it had been fought. The statistics of the toll of the war in the life is as follows: About 8 million individuals were killed in action or died of wounds received in battle. Above 19 million were wounded of whom more than a third were totally impaired. The total casualties were over 27 million and to this number should be added a great many who have died from causes to be traced directly or back to the war. The experience created trauma in the consciousness of most of the peoples who had taken part in it and this fact is of utmost importance for the understanding of the events that took place for many years to follow.

What were the Peace Settlements? Separate peace treaties were signed, with each of the vanquished Central Powers: the Versailles Treaty with Germany, June 28,1919: the St. Germain Treaty with Austria, September 10, 1919; the Trianon Treaty with Hungary, March 22, 1919; the Neuilly Treaty with Bulgaria, November 27, 1919; and the Sevres Treaty with Turkey, August 20, 1920. Three features of this overall peace settlement are significant for world history: the establishment of the League of Nations, the application of the principle of self-determination in Europe, and the failure to apply this principle outside Europe.

The League of Nations was organised in order to attain two main goals. The first was to preserve the peace. Its members were to give each other mutual protection against aggression, to submit disputes to arbitration or inquiry, and to abstain from war until three months after arbitration. The second was to concern itself with health, social, economic, and humanitarian problems of international scope. For this purpose, there were established specialised League bodies such as the Health Organisation, the Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, and the International Labour Organisation, as well as numerous temporary advisory commissions. By and large, the League succeeded brilliantly in its second goal. It proved invaluable in improving international labour conditions, promoting world health, combating the narcotic and slave traffics, and coping with economic crises. The League was not able to keep the peace, and since this was its chief aim, that failure spelled the end of the entire organisation.

The peace settlement was characterised by the redrawing of European frontiers on the basis of the principle of self-determination. This, stated explicitly in the 14 points, was officially implemented in the various peace treaties. The net result was a drastic revision of the map of Europe. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France without question. Russia was deprived of most of its Baltic coastline by the establishment of the independent states of Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

An independent Poland was created, carved out of former Russian, German, and Hapsburg provinces; Czechoslovakia emerged from the former Hapsburg Empire. Yugoslavia also appeared, comprising pre-war Serbia and Monte Negro and various former Hapsburg territories inhabited by the Slavs. Rumania more than doubled in size as a result of its acquisitions from Austria–Hungary, Russia, and Bulgaria. Finally, from the remains of the old Hapsburg Empire, there emerged the two states of Austria and Hungary.

The principle of self-determination was not respected in every instance in the drawing of the new frontiers. Indeed, there were bitter protests concerning the sizeable German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and the Russian minorities in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Rumania. The explanation for this friction is to be found partly in the fact that the numerous ethnic groups in Central and Eastern Europe were so inextricably mixed that no frontiers could be drawn without creating considerable minorities on one side or the other. The inevitable minorities, however, were substantially increased because frontiers sometimes were drawn to satisfy strategic considerations as well as nationalist aspirations. This was why the Sudeten Germans were left in Czechoslovakia, why the Tyrol Germans were left in Italy, and why the union of Austria and Germany was specifically forbidden by the St. Germain Treaty even though it would have been in accord with popular will, at least in the immediate post-war years. Yet despite these deviations, the new frontiers were infinitely more in accord with nationalist aspirations than the old. The number of minority people was much smaller after World War I than before.

Although the peacemakers generally applied self-determination in Europe, they definitely did not do so outside Europe. This discrimination was clearly evident in Wilson's 14 points, which specially spelled out how the aspirations of the various European minorities were to be satisfied. By contrast, point 5 declared that in the colonies 'the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.' The significant point here is the reference to the interests rather than to the 'wishes' of the colonial peoples. Needless to say, it was the Europeans themselves who decided what these 'interests' were, and the outcome was a modified form of imperial rule known as the Mandate System.

Article 22 of the League Covenant referred to the inhabitants of the colonies taken from the Central Powers as 'people not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world'. The article accordingly provided that the 'tutelage of such people should be entrusted to advanced nations who, by reason of their resources, their experience, or their geographical position, can best undertake this responsibility… and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf off the League'. It is significant that this provision for 'tutelage' under 'Mandatories' was not extended to the colonies of the victorious Allies, whose inhabitants in many cases were at a similar level of development or lack of development.

The Mandates article divided the foreign and overseas territories of Germany and the Ottoman Empire into A, B and C mandates. The category varies according to the level of development of the territory concerned. On this basis, the former Ottoman possessions were put in Class A and the German colonies in B and C. Of the Ottoman territories, Mesopotamia and Palestine were allotted to Britain as the Mandatory Power, and Syria and Lebanon to France. Of the German colonies, the greater part of Tanganyika went to Britain and the remainder to Belgium; Togoland and the Camerons were divided between Britain and France; Southwest Africa was allotted to the Union of South Africa; and Germany's Pacific islands north of the equator went to Japan, and those south of the equator to Australia and New Zealand.

The Mandatory Powers assumed specific obligations toward the inhabitants of the mandate territories. For fulfillment of these obligations, they were accountable to the permanent Mandates Commission and were required to report annually to the Council of the League of Nations. Though neither the Commission nor the League itself had authority to force a recalcitrant mandatory power to fulfill its obligation, it is significant that European states for the first time accepted certain specified procedures. The procedures varied according to the type of mandate. In the case of Class A, the Mandates article looked forward specifically to the granting of independence as soon as feasible. The duty of the mandatory power was merely 'the rendering of administrative advice and assistance until such time as they (the people of the mandated territory) are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the mandatory power'. For Class B and C Mandates, there was no reference to eventual independence. The obligation, rather, was to provide administration in accordance with the interests of the inhabitants.

Although the Mandate System represented certain improvements over the traditional division of colonial booty by the victors in a war, nevertheless, it is strongly reminiscent of the 1815 Settlement because it ignored national aspirations. The inhabitants of the Ottoman territories did not want mandate status and were violently opposed to France as mandatory power. Their wishes were directly flouted when Syria and Lebanon were allotted to France. Even in the case of some of the Class B Mandates in Africa, there was acute dissatisfaction with the arrangements made. It is not surprising, then, that just as the ignoring of nationalist wishes in 1815 led to a long series of revolutions in Europe during the 19th century, so this Mandate System was to lead to uprisings in the colonial world during the post-war years.

What was the War's Significance? A cursory glance at the world map before and after World War reveals comparatively new changes. Europe's frontiers were different because of the disappearance of four empires, but so far as the world as a whole was concerned, European dominance appeared undiminished. Britain, France, and the other imperial powers still ruled as many overseas colonies as before 1914. Indeed, their possessions were even greater, for they now controlled territories in the Middle East that formerly had been under the Ottoman Sultan. Thus, Europe's global hegemony appeared to be more complete after World War I than before.

Beneath the surface, however, the situation was entirely different. The overriding significance of World War I from a global viewpoint is precisely that it began the undermining of Europe's supremacy – a process that was completed after World War II. The undermining was evident in at least three regards; economic decline, the crises, and the weakening hold over the colonies.

Before 1914, Europe's economy was dependent to a considerable degree upon massive overseas investments yielding massive annual returns. During World War I, however, Britain lost a quarter of its foreign investments, France a third, and Germany lost all. The reverse of this trend may be seen in the new financial strength of the United States. In 1914, the United States owed about $ 4 billion to European investors, but by 1919 the United States had become a creditor nation to the tune of $3.7 billion; by 1930 this had risen to $ 8.8 billion. The same pattern is evident in industry, for many European industrial areas were devastated, while American factories mushroomed spectacularly under the impetus of unlimited wartime demand. By 1929, the United States was responsible for no less than 42.2 percent of the world industrial output, an amount greater than that of all the countries of Europe, including Russia. Thus, the economic relationships between Europe and the United States were reversed as a result of World War I. Europe no longer was the banker and the workshop of the world, as it had been during the 19th century. Leadership in both areas had crossed the Atlantic.

The war gutted Europe politically as well as economically. Prior to 1914 Europe had been the source of the basic political ideas and institutions of modern times. Their impact, as we have seen, had been felt in all corners of the globe. The holocaust of war, however, left Europeans demoralised and unbelieving. In all parts of the Continent, the old order was being questioned and challenged. In this revolutionary crisis many Europeans looked for guidance to two non-Europeans, the American Wilson and the Russian Lenin. Wilson's 14 points had stirred up a ferment of democratic hope and expectancy. When he stepped on the blood-soaked soil of Europe in December 1918, huge crowds greeted Wilson with delirious enthusiasm as 'King of Humanity', 'Saviour', 'Prince of Peace'. They listened avidly to his plans for a future of peace and security. At the same time, another gospel of salvation was coming from the East. Millions of dead and wounded, the smoking ruins of cities and villages made large masses receptive to the call for revolution and for a new social order. In imitation of the Bolshevik revolution, Soviets were set up in Berlin, Hamburg, and Budapest. Demonstrations were staged in the streets of London, Paris, and Rome.

Finally, Europe's domination was undermined by World War I because of the repercussions in the overseas colonies. The spectacle of one bloc of European powers fighting another to the bitter end damaged the prestige of the white master irreparably. No longer was he regarded as almost divinely ordained to rule over coloured subjects. Equally disruptive was the participation in the war of millions of colonials as soldiers or as labourers. Indian divisions fought on the western front and in Mesopotamia; many Africans in French uniform fought in Northern France; and large numbers of Chinese and Indo-Chinese served in labour battalions behind the lines. Needless to say, the colonials who returned home after such experiences were not likely to be as obedient to European overlords as before.

Revolutionary ideas in the colonies were also spread by propaganda associated with the conduct of the war. It is true that Wilson's 14 points had referred only to the 'interest' rather than to the desires of the colonial peoples. This was an over-fine distinction in a time of war. The revolutionary phrase 'self-determination of people' left its imprint on the colonial world as well as upon Europe. Equally influential were the ideologies of socialism and communism. Before World War I, Asian intellectuals had been inspired by western Liberalism and Nationalism. They had quoted Voltaire, Mazzini, and John Stuart Mill, but their sons now were likely to quote Marx, Lenin, or Harold Laski.

World Depression of 1929–1932

Nutshell Account

In economics, 'depression' means a sudden decline or slump in trade, industry, agriculture and general prosperity. Though there had been several depressions in the history of the modern world, the World Depression of 1929–1932 was unprecedented both in its intensity and impact. This World Depression witnessed a world slump in agriculture, finance and industry. The slump in agriculture was caused by over production in certain regions and maldistribution. Agricultural slump in the US was aggravated by the slump in finance which was in turn caused by a fever of speculation leading first to withdrawal of funds from Europe and later to the panic known as the 'Wall Street Crash' of October 1929, and in Europe, by the collapse of the Austrian Credit-Anstalt, a bank with interests throughout the Danubian lands, precipitated by French withdrawal of short-term credit. The slump in industry was caused by a fall in exports and internal consumption resulting from shortage of capital, leading to reduced industrial production, less need of transport (hitting the shipping industry) and producing mass unemployment. The general impact of the Depression was to lead to increased economic planning (e.g., New Deal of Roosevelt), intensified economic nationalism (e.g., erection of high tariff walls), and the encouragement of political nationalist movements as an alternative to communism (e.g., Nazism in Germany).

What was the World Depression? The 'Great Depression', which put an end to all hopes of a continued period of peace and prosperity, began in October 1929 in the Wall Street (the financial headquarters of New York). It was unsensational in its beginning; it seemed at first to be no more than a rather large-scale hasty selling of securities which the wiser operators knew already were overpriced. But the selling did not stop; as each day passed more and more stocks and shares were thrown into the market, and prices slumped.

Soon the shares of even the best companies were worth barely quarter of what they once were, and for others there was a complete dearth of buyers. The rich men of America, the bankers and captains of industry, who had no comprehension of what was happening, more than once, united to purchase securities 'to support the market'; it was like building a fence to stop a flood. There was a momentary hesitation, and then the torrent poured on. The apparent stabilisation of capitalism after World War I was, therefore, short lived, for the world economy plunged into the worst depression in its history.

Though heralded by the Wall Street crash, it was some years before it became apparent that this Depression was no ordinary cyclical downturn. It affected every capitalist country, and its depth and length defied all explanation. Even on the eve of World War II, the Depression had not been completely overcome.

Although the Depression was concentrated in the USA, it was the special and intimate relationships established between the US and other capitalist economies after World War I that accounted for its rapid diffusion and harsh impact. It is also clear that the stabilisation that had taken place in the other countries and the boom conditions of many in the late 1920s concealed serious shortcomings. The British economy's inability to resume capital exports, the decline of its basic industries, the consequences of the over valuation of sterling all weakened the world economy and thrust greater responsibilities upon the USA. The investment boom in European countries following reconstruction could only continue so long as markets could be found; a cyclical downturn was inevitable sooner or later. The problems of the primary producers (now weak sellers as a result of over production) reduced the market for manufactured goods and slowed their growth rate.

In return to gold, some currencies had been overvalued, others undervalued, and the Depression struck before adjustments could be made. Moreover, international financial relations were no longer on pre-war lines. War debts and reparations weakened capitalist countries, leaving the USA as the major creditor. The 1920s boom in Europe had been financed by an outflow of US funds, much of the investment being on a short-term basis and already being withdrawn in the last phase of Wall Street speculation before the crash. Any investigation of the causes of the Depression must consider the changed role of the USA as the new main support of prosperity in the capitalist world. Once the US economy had slumped, there was no prospect of maintaining prosperity elsewhere.

Why did it Occur? In contrast to the general impression, the Depression was not caused or even started by a stock market crash in October 1929. The roots of the Depression lay in a fundamental imbalance in the economic structure, aggravated by the peace settlement following World War I. Seeming prosperity in the USA during the 1920s concealed the dangers but agriculture and other important sections were depressed, as was much of Europe's economy. What the Wall Street Crash did was to expose all these weaknesses of the US as well as other capitalist economies.

The US economy had experienced occasional periods of depressed business activity even in the 18th century, and fairly regular business cycles with international links began to appear in the 1850s. But until the 1930s bad times had not often lasted more than a year.

The US prosperity in the 1920s had some weak spots. Each year throughout the decade, on the average, 600 banks failed, along with nearly 20,000 other business concerns. Most of the time unemployment had averaged 2.2 million, almost 5% of the work force. Mining, farming, and the textile industry had been depressed, and in 1928 the construction boom had ended.

Besides, in 1929, Europe as a whole had not fully regained the economic levels it had attained before World War I. Prices and incomes throughout the world were depressed because underdeveloped nations, aided by US loans, had over expanded their raw material production capacity. The 1919 Peace of Paris was not economically sound. Punitive reparations, loss of colonies, and changes in national boundaries made German and mid-European recuperation nearly impossible and contributed to a spirit of revenge that nourished Hitlerism.

Britain purposely deflated domestic incomes in a misguided effort to make up for wartime capital consumption in export industries and to maintain the gold standard. French devaluation made Paris a haven for American artists and writers but not for French workers, whose real wages fell. Until 1931, the USA insisted shortsightedly on repayment of war debts although the effect could only be a drain of needed resources out of war-damaged economies. American private capital flowed to the rest of the world, where it was used partly to settle war claims, partly to enlarge already overproduction in industries, and partly to prop up dictatorships. This capital export helped conceal the basic weakness of the world market system.

American economist, John K. Galbraith, in his book, 'The Great Crash, 1929,' ascribed the Depression to five main causes, (1) Unequal income distribution, which limited the consumer goods market and made investment and luxury spending erratic (bad news from Wall Street sent both down), (2) Fraudulent business, which abounded in a kind of flood tide of corporate theft (3) Banking structure, which contained too many independent units, causing bankers to yield to over optimism or to act foolishly, and once one bank failed, the whole system collapsed, (4) The new creditor position of the USA which besides resulting in unwise foreign lending, was coupled with tariffs so that foreign countries could not service their debts by increasing exports USA, resulting in default and the inability of foreigners to continue to pay for US exports, and (5) The poor state of economic intelligence.

What was its Economic Impact? As mentioned earlier, there had been depressions before, but this was unheard of in its violence. Its effects were maximised not only by the disastrous 'foreign debts' and tariffs policy, but by particular results of uncontrolled private ownership and enterprise. Moreover, the unbalanced nature of US economy made recovery difficult. The needs of the rich had been catered for, and the less fortunate ignored. Now, it was difficult to destroy the demand for bread, beef, simple clothing and other needs of poor men; but it was easy to wipe out, overnight, the demand for expensive motor cars, new mansions, and luxury goods generally and to stop investment by the rich in everything. Soon factories, mills and shipyards were closing down, un-saleable expensive cars piled up and their owners sold apples in the streets; farmers went bankrupt, and their lands went wild. At the beginning of 1933, nearly 20 million people were said to be facing starvation.

In the modern world, this kind of disaster could not be confined to one country; it spread wider than any plague since the Black Death. American investment in Germany ceased in 1929. Next year, American loans were called in. The wicked and absurd system based on 'reparations' now had its natural results. The Credit-Anstalt, the bank that financed most of Austrian industry, faced bankruptcy; German banks and the Bank of England came to its rescue, but the strain was merely passed on to them. The Bank of England was now in danger, and there was not enough gold to meet its obligations. Now gold could only be found in the vaults of Paris and New York banks; Paris would lend none and New York insisted upon changes in British internal policy (notably, cutting down unemployment relief, which, of course, would cut down demand equally); the weak British Labour government resisted and was thrown out of power; its conservative successor agreed to fullfil the condition which was no good; the pound broke, and lost a fifth of its value; the gold standard was abandoned. London had been the financial centre of the world, and international trade was now in chaos. The only country unaffected by this Depression of 1929–32 was the USSR, because it did not maintain any significant trade and commercial links with the western world.

What was its Social Impact? The above economic catastrophes gave rise to problems of corresponding magnitude. Most serious was the mass unemployment which reached tragic proportions. In March 1933, the number of people out of work in the US was estimated conservatively at over 14 million or a fourth of the total labour force. In Britain, the jobless were numbered at nearly 3 million, representing about the same proportion of workers as in the US. Germany was, in fact, the worst off with more than 2/5ths of trade unionists wholly unemployed, and another one-fifth on part-time work.

Unemployment of this scale drastically lowered living standards in all countries. Even in the wealthy US, there was wholesale misery and privation, especially in the beginning, when relief was left to private and local agencies with inadequate funds. In Britain, where unemployment had been chronic through the 1920s, the situation now became worse. A substantial proportion of a whole generation was growing up with little opportunity or prospect of finding employment. Some bitterly referred to their purposeless existence as a 'living death'. In Germany, with its higher percentage of jobless people, the frustrations and tensions were more acute. Eventually, they made it possible for Hitler to triumph, for social dislocation on such a large scale inevitably had profound political repercussions.

What was its Political Impact? The political consequences of this world disaster were, to some extent, a mere hazard. Wherever the people of a country were able to exercise a choice, the dominant government was thrown out. If it was progressive, reaction took control; if it was conservative, radicals came to power. In the USA, the Republicans had so far taken credit for the boom, but now they were hurled from power in 1932 by the Democrats led by Franklin D. Roosevelt. In Spain, the king quietly left Madrid and handed over power to a Republic. Usually it was the other way round. The British conservatives were able to fasten the blame on to their Labour predecessors, and held power, with some liberal allies, until well into the next year. The Japanese militarists, not contended with removing their more pacific predecessors from office, killed those they disliked one by one in the succeeding years. Dictators took over from feeble parliaments in country after country in Eastern and Central Europe and in South America; the worst disaster of all was the collapse of the German Republic and its capture by the Nazis led by Adolf Hitler. This succession of disasters to freedom and equality in the separate countries was bound to lead to similar disasters internationally. There was but one major power, the USA, where progressive ideas had any power. But, unfortunately, it was hypnotised by the delusion that to keep clear off all foreign problems was the way to safety. Moreover, though few people knew it, the League of Nations was already doomed because its constituent members now had neither the will nor the power to keep it alive; it would not be long before the dictators realised that there was nothing to stop them resorting to violence internationally as well as internally to gain their ends.

What was Governmental Response? It was generally assumed by economists, at least well into the 1930s, that government intervention should be minimal, the assumption being that government intervention could not coerce, and might aggravate, a market disequilibrium. Indeed, some felt the depression was partly a consequence of governmental intervention. Whenever a government began to intervene, the orthodox majority continued to blame it for the economy's failure to recover quickly and completely. Since the 1930's, however, economic opinion has moved to the view that governments should have intervened with appropriate weapons to remedy what was seen as the basic cause of depression, viz. a deficiency in demand.

The World Depression had such severe consequences, both economic and non-economic, that even reluctant governments could not stand aside. The price of non-intervention was 'Social Revolution', and intervention was, or could be, a weapon of counter-revolution, as under the Nazi regime in Germany. Intervention, therefore, took place pragmatically, and its forms were at first 'orthodox' in that they consisted of old, well-tried methods.

First, the tendency toward Economic Nationalism was reinforced as governments imposed tariffs or raised existing ones and added quotas and other devices to protect home producers. As the depression continued, protection tended to be used aggressively to bargain with other countries and penetrate foreign markets. The disintegration of multilateralism, which was often replaced by bilateral trading agreements, accompanied the decline of world trade. The immediate effect of all these measures was to reduce the volume of international trade and create conditions of trade war.

Along with this went the breakdown of the gold standard. With their objective base for parity destroyed, currencies became subject to government action, and some form of exchange control had to be established if balance of payments, difficulties were not to be exaggerated by speculative currency movements. Countries, like France, which delayed establishing exchange controls did so to their cost. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, by means of rigid controls, could operate parallel exchange rates to its advantage and at the expense of weaker trading partners.

How did the Recovery Take Place? The World Depression of 1929–32 shook Capitalism to its foundations, and was the major formative influence on political and social as well as economic life. Despite millions of people being unemployed throughout the decade and the triumph of Nazism in Germany and the subsequent drive to war, most years of the 1930s were, however, years of recovery, though recovery from a low level. The depression itself had prepared the ground for recovery through the normal cyclical process.

Recovery came slowly and in many countries was far from complete by World War II. Until there was a revival of world trade, the primary producers could not raise their incomes. On the other hand, in the advanced countries, even those as export dependent as Britain and Germany, it was possible to find a substitute for exports. In Germany, this was chiefly war production. In Britain, although rearmament in the late 1930s helped recovery, it had earlier depended upon expansion of the home market, the shift to new industries, and the continuous rise in service activities, even in the 'depressed areas'.

As a major importer of food stuffs and raw materials, Britain was able to take advantage of the deterioration in terms of trade of primary products. This enabled consumers to spend more of their income on food items and expanded the consumer goods and services market, creating new opportunities for profitable investment and employment. It assisted manufacturers directly and consumers indirectly through the relative cheapening of imported raw materials. Almost all persons could, thus, improve their real income, at the expense, in part, of primary producers abroad. Where those primary producers were to a large extent at home, as in France, these conditions for recovery did not exist.

All governments realised that something had to be done to relieve what amounted to a national catastrophe. The Soviet Union's example had begun to turn thoughts towards planning, even of capitalism, as a possibility. In the early years of the depression, the instinctive reaction of politicians was still strongly orthodox. The watchword virtually everywhere was to keep the budget balanced and avoid interference with free market forces. Policy was, thus, generally deflationary: Government expenditures were vigorously reduced, and the more consistently were such remedies applied, as in France, the more they aggravated the disease. In some cases, however, governments did not inadvertently run budget deficits through emergency action, and where they did so they began, possibly unwittingly, to assist recovery.

The real innovation, however, came when what was done in some cases by accident was pursued systematically. Here two experiments are worth mentioning. Both had the character of models (to be emulated or to be avoided) and both have preoccupied economists and historians since. One is the National Socialist Policy adopted in Germany by Adolf Hitler in 1933, which prepared the most powerful industrial nation in Europe for a new war. The other is the New Deal, which Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed to the American people after his inauguration at almost the same time. These two experiments can also be considered as alternative ways of saving Capitalism. Both shed light on the nature and efficacy of remedies for unemployment and depression that, during and after World War II, were to acquire immense prestige both among professional economists and the general public.

It was no secret that German recovery was based on a war economy. All participants in World War II experienced a similar process; but the German experience was novel. The Nazis established a full employment economy but one geared to war and with war as its inevitable outcome. Nor did the Nazi leaders try to disguise their intentions, which they rationalised as a need to acquire for Germany more 'living space'. The Nazis did not establish a new economic system; they simply imposed greater state control on an economy that still rested upon private ownership and profit. Industrially, however, it was a highly concentrated economy, and it was big business that benefitted most directly from Hitler's policies.

The New Deal, on the other hand, enabled President Roosevelt to overcome the dire emergency that confronted him on his inauguration without disaster and without making inroads into private property rights or political freedom. It did not, however, fully succeed in bringing about recovery. In fact, it took the colossal expenditures of World War II finally to overcome the Great Depression. In this respect, the New Deal can be contrasted with Nazi policy which found the complete answer to the Depression: arms expenditure limited only by physical resources. This was the answer, too, that American Capitalism found after 1940.

New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt

The social and economic reforms of Franklin D. Roosevelt between 1933 and 1940 were known as the 'New Deal'. Roosevelt, after becoming the President of USA in 1933, declared a programme based on relief, recovery and reform. Emergency relief money was given directly to people through state and local agencies.

To give jobs to many of the 14 million unemployed, public work projects were started. The National Recovery Administration attempted to guide business and industry in limiting production and ending unfair competition, until the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Tennessee Valley Authority built dams, began a conservation programme, and supplied cheap electricity to people in seven states. Social security was created providing payments to the elderly, insurance for the jobless, and aid to dependent mothers and children. Minimum wages were established. The Roosevelt administration also attempted to have farmers limit production to increase farm income. Although it was only World War II that brought full recovery to the US, the New Deal made reforms in business and industry, helped labour, and restored confidence

What is 'New Deal'? The term 'New Deal', though never properly defined, became the label for anti-depression measures of Roosevelt's first two terms as President of the USA. His supporters held that the New Deal signified the most imaginative burst of federal domestic legislation in American history. His critics contended that it was nothing more than a miscellany of alphabetical agencies which failed to end the World Depression of 1929–32.

On the eve of Roosevelt's assumption of office in March 1933, the nation faced an economic crisis of enormous proportions, caused by the Depression. Most of the country's banks, weakened by the withdrawal of funds by frightened depositors, were closed. More than 14 million people were unemployed. Other serious repercussions were unstable agricultural prices, reduced production, reduced wages, large scale hoarding, export of gold deposits, etc.

The main aim of the US administration under Roosevelt was to attack and solve this economic crisis. To do so, Roosevelt felt that he would have to carry out experiment to find the practical approach. Hence his New Deal programmedid not have a defined economic philosophy. It was opportunistic rather than hypothetical in its approach to problems. However, it was consistent in some ways. It had humanitarian goals, an openness to new ideas, and an inclination to expand federal powers to achieve its objective. It proposed to provide relief for the needy, recovery for the nation at large and long range reform of some economic institutions. The New Deal in effect was, therefore, a programme of 'Relief, Recovery and Reform'.

How was Relief Provided?

The relief component of the New Deal led to the foundation of a host of administrative agencies between 1933–35. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) eventually employed 2.5 million young men on conservation and reforestation projects. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and the Civil Works Administration (CWA) spent more than $ 2 billion on doles and work relief between 1933 and 35. The Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) helped thousands of property owners and lending institutions throughout the decade. His administration also removed the nation from the gold standard in 1933 and implemented mildly inflationary monetary policies in 1933–34. These efforts provided some relief to debtors.

The most important relief agency of the New Deal was the Works Progress Administration (WPA) set up in 1935. During the next eight years, it built or improved more than 2,500 hospitals, 5,900 school buildings, and almost 13,000 playgrounds. It gave funds for federal theatre, arts and writers' projects that enriched the nation's cultural life. The WPA's National Youth Administration gave financial aid to more than 2 million high school and college students and to 2.6 million young people who were not in school. Most of the WPA's money amounting to $ 11 billion in all by 1943, went for short-term, make-work projects to assist the unemployed. At peak periods, the WPA helped more than 3 million people.

These relief agencies signified an unprecedented federal involvement in welfare. The millions of Americans who benefitted from them, especially blacks and other minorities, showed their gratitude by lionizing Roosevelt and by voting Democratic in subsequent elections. The relief policies of the New Deal also stored up confidence in the Nation's political institutions and to belittle the agitations growing since 1929.

However, it should be remarked that the relief measures did not produce the desired results. Even at its peak, the WPA failed to reach 7 million unemployed and their families, and it gave hopelessly low wages. Unemployable, such as the sick, the crippled, the aged, and dependent children were left at the mercy of the states, which were often unable or unwilling to help. So, the New Deal relief measures can at the most be described as partially successful.

How was Recovery Achieved? The New Deal's main recovery programmes included the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), the National Recovery Administration (NRA), and the Public Works Administration (PWA), all set up in 1933 at special session of the Congress. Unlike the relief agencies, these recovery programmes were primarily meant for the long-term goal of stabilising and improving agriculture, business and employment.

The AAA's primary solution to low farm prices was domestic allotment – a programme that motivated commercial farmers to cut down production of basic crops and livestock. Reductions in supply were supposed to encourage market prices. Cooperating farmers received federal subsidies. Because of disastrous droughts in some areas, the AAA eventually succeeded in limiting supply and raising farm prices by 50% in Roosevelt's first term. In this way, it provided succour to large commercial farmers in the regions unaffected by drought. However, the AAA created troubles for tenants, many of whom were removed from the land by acreage quotas, and for consumers, who had to pay more for food and clothing. The critics argued that the New Deal caused agricultural scarcity when millions of people faced shortages in food and clothing.

The NRA was a trial in government-business cooperation. It made business and labour leaders to sign codes of fair competition within their industries. The codes established norms for pricing and production and assured labour the rights of collective bargaining, minimum wages, and maximum hours. The NRA, despite a beginning, lost its effectiveness. Trade union leaders complained that the courts nullified the labour guarantees. Progressives argued that monopolies were excluded from anti-trust prosecution. Small businessmen maintained that the codes were favourable to large corporations. By 1934 evasion of the codes was rampant, and industrial recovery was slow. In 1935, the US Supreme Court nullified the NRA by stating that the code making provisions amounted to an unwarranted transfer of legislative authority to the President. By that time, the NRA lost its utility.

The TWA, which had an initial budget of $ 3.3 billion, facilitated in building scores of court-houses, sewage plants, bridges, hospitals and city halls in the 1930s. In a restricted way it constructed public housing for the poor. It distributed huge sums of money without a single scam. Still its prudence in spending money made the PWA a poor engine for recovery. Rather than pumping money quickly into the economy, it procrastinated till there was certainty that the amounts would be properly used. Enhanced purchasing power, essential for prosperity, was therefore sluggish to develop, and the pace of industrial recovery slowed down accordingly.

How were Reforms Instituted? Under the New Deal, several reform measures were enacted, the important among them being the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which helped prevent banking panics; the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which paved the way for federal regulation of stock exchanges; and the Banking Act of 1935, which increased Washington's control over monetary policy. These legislations reduced the chances of future depressions as harsh as the one of 1929–32.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), set up in 1933, was a significant New Deal achievement. It was involved in the manufacture of fertilisers, in soil conservation, and in social experiments with state and local agencies. Its most prominent achievement was the building of multipurpose dams to control floods and generate cheap electric power throughout the region drained by the Tennessee River and its tributaries. The TVA did refrain from broadranging social experimentation, but improved the standards of living of millions.

The New Deal also brought about a change in the nature of labour management relations. Labour leaders, inspired temporarily by passage of the NRA in 1933, believed that Roosevelt would not use government to suppress unions. Accordingly, they carried out successful organising drives throughout the 1930s. They also agitated for the Wagner Act, passed in 1935. This important law set up the National Labour Relations Board, which guaranteed to labour the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with managements.

In 1938, the New Dealers helped in the enactment of the Fair Labour Standards Act. The Act stipulated minimum wages and maximum hours for certain types of work and banned child labour involved in inter-state commerce. Despite the exclusion of many workers from coverage, the act proved to be a cautious step towards federal supervision of labour conditions. Partly due to the generously neutral attitude of the New Deal and partly due to the leadership of the militant labour leaders, union membership in the USA multiplied from 3.2 million in 1932 to 9 million in 1940. This was the decade's most significant social change. Another lasting achievement of the New Deal was the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. For, it made the federal government to take up social welfare programmes like old-age pensions, unemployment insurance and assistance to the needy, blind and disabled persons and to dependent children. The act was conservative in many aspects: regressive payroll taxes paid for the blind, disabled and dependent. Nevertheless, the Social Security Act provided a base for later expansion of federally assisted social services. It was the beginning of America's partial welfare state.

How was New Deal Implemented During Second Term? Though the New Deal programmes suffered from several limitations, the US economy recovered to certain extent during the first term of Roosevelt (1933–36). Hoping for more, the voters returned Roosevelt to office in 1936 for a second term. The president then committed the blunder of asking for legislation allowing him to 'pack' the conservative Supreme Court (which had also found the AAA and some other New Deal legislation unconstitutional) with up to six new judges. At the same time, militant workers resorted to sit down strikes in factories. These events scared both conservatives and moderates in the Congress and placed New Dealers on the on the back foot. Though Congress permitted modest appropriations to aid tenant farmers and to support public housing, it opposed majority of the New Deal initiative during Roosevelt's second term.

The biggest setback to the New Deal was the sharp economic recession that occurred in late 1937 and negated most of the gains of 1933–36. This recession was principally the outcome of cuts in federal spending that Roosevelt, a fiscal conservative, had undertook early in the year to reduce budgetary deficits. Jolted by the slump, Roosevelt deferred until April 1938 before recommending improved spending. His procrastination confirmed the uncertainty and inconsistency of New Deal fiscal policy throughout the 1930s. Till the government significantly increased its spending in 1939–40 particularly for national defence, the Great Depression did not show any major signs of abating.

This fiscal conservatism was suggestive of a general political caution characteristic of the New Deal. Afraid of antagonising the Southern Congressmen, Roosevelt extended no support to civil rights legislation. He made only half-hearted and short-lived efforts to help tenant farmers, provide for public housing, or to redistribute wealth through higher taxes on the rich.

Although he gave lip service to trust-busting in his second term, he did not strive to stem the tide of corporate concentration. Throughout the 1930s, the New Deal was opportunistic and realistic. Rather than working against, it cooperated with large commercial farmers and big business. It appreciated voluntarism, decentralisation, and states' rights.

What was its Outcome? It is generally agreed that the New Deal did not accomplish all that Roosevelt and his supporters had desired. Some of the measures failed totally, or at the most only partially successful, such as the Farmers' Relief Act which though helped big farmers, rendered many farm labourers jobless. Though unemployment was reduced (8 million in 1937 as against 14 million in 1933), it still remained a serious problem. It was only the war effort that brought unemployment below the one million mark in 1943.

Yet, it must be conceded that the New Deal achieved a lot. In the initial period, its main achievements were providing relief for the destitute and jobless and creating millions of extra jobs. Consequently, confidence was restored in the government, and according to some, it probably prevented a violent revolution. The public works schemes and the TVA provided services of permanent value, and much of the rest initiated long term developments – welfare benefits, national direction of resources, collective bargaining between workers and management – which are all today taken for granted. Never before had an American intervened so directly in the lives of ordinary people, and never before had so much attention been focussed on an American President. Roosevelt's chief achievement was to rescue the two seemingly contrasting concepts of democracy and free enterprise at a time when other crisis-ridden states were going over to fascism and communism.

Besides, the New Deal facilitated change in both politics and political institutions. Democrats, formerly an awkward coalition of differing elements, became the advocates of urban liberalism and swept to power in much of the North and Midwest. Henceforth, the Democratic Party occupied majority status in the USA. Under the New Deal, the executive branch, and the presidency especially, also became much more active and innovative than ever. The states and localities themselves gained in the course of administering federal programmes and appropriating funds for matching-grant programmes. Interest groups, already strong before 1933, widened their lines of contact with these expanding governmental entities. In this fashion, the New Deal, though of doubtful value economically, initiated long-range trends towards governmental expansion and modernisation.

Rise of Militarism in Japan

The Japanese had entered World War I primarily to exploit what seemed to be a golden opportunity. They easily occupied the German islands in the Pacific and the German holdings on the Shantung peninsula. The Japanese also had plans for the mainland China, as evident in their 21 demands on China (January 1915), and in their expeditionary force to Siberia, which stayed back after the British and American troops left in 1920. These ambitious plans were, mostly unrealised. At the Paris Peace Conference, Japan managed to keep control of the former German islands, but as Class 'C' mandates rather than as out right possessions. President Wilson vigorously opposed Japanese claims to the Chinese Shantung peninsula. As a compromise, Japan was allowed to retain temporary possession of the peninsula, but it agreed reluctantly to restore the territory to China in future, retaining only the economic privilege earlier enjoyed by Germany.

At the Washington Naval Conference, Japan officially renounced any territorial ambitions it may still have desired. The nine powers at the conference signed a Nine-Power Treaty (February 6, 1922) assuring the territorial integrity of China and upholding the principle of the Open Door. At the same conference, the United States, Britain, France, and Japan signed the Four-Power Treaty (December 13, 1921) by which they consented to respect one another's rights in 'insular possessions' in the Pacific and to resolve any future disagreements by negotiations. Besides, Japan, due to energetic American intercession, agreed to restore Shantung to China and to evacuate its troops from Siberia. Both commitments were carried out in 1922.

After indulging in the above foreign adventures, for a while Japan focussed on domestic economic problems. Japan, like the United States, had grown tremendously during World War I, supplying munitions and merchant shipping. Between 1914 and 1920, the value of foreign trade almost quadrupled. But the prosperity was not evenly distributed because of the exceptional concentration of economic power in the so-called Zaibatsu (Zai means wealth, batsu, clique). The peasants, amounting to fifty per cent of the total population, were very poor due to high rents and heavy debts. A mere seven per cent of these families were owners of five acres or more of land, with the average holding being less than three acres. Urban workers were victims of high food prices, low wages, and lack of trade union freedom.

The miserable living standards of the workers and peasants had an adverse impact on the domestic market. As a result, Japanese industry became over dependent on foreign markets for the disposal of its manufactures. This dependence caused disaster due to onset of the Depression. Between 1929 and 1931, foreign trade fell by almost 50 percent. The peasants, who had augmented their paltry incomes by silk cultivation, were badly hit by the quick fall in silk exports to Depressionridden USA. City workers similarly reeled under unemployment.

Military brass and other votaries of territorial aggrandisement argued convincingly that the root of Japan's trouble was its over dependence upon foreign markets. Japan should establish an empire that would make it economically self-reliant in the world. Military spokesmen had been advocating this doctrine for years, but the repercussions of the Depression now presented them a responsive audience, as in the case of Hitler in Germany. The Japanese militarists were not only goaded by economic considerations, but were also worried about the growing strength of the Soviet Union and the increasing success of Chiang Kai-shek in unifying China. Besides, they were burdened with unemployment situation and other problems that were then engrossing the attention of Western statesmen. These factors played a crucial role in the Japanese decision to invade the Chinese province of Manchuria in 1931.

Manchuria did not accidentally become the first target of Japanese expansionism. This Northeastern province of China was not only linked with the central Nanking government and but also abundantly endowed with natural resources, including iron, coal and extensive fertile plains. Moreover, Japan had acquired through past treaties several special privileges in Manchuria. These could be utilised to look for pretexts for justifying aggressive measures.

Taking advantage of a minor incident in South Manchuria (an explosion which destroyed a small portion of the railway track north of Mukden on September 18, 1931), Japan occupied Mukden and Changchun within twenty-four hours and then spread out in all directions. By taking Harbin in late January 1932 all organised resistance came to an end in Manchuria. In March 1932, the Japanese rechristened their conquest 'Manchukuo' (the state of Manchu). Since they required a puppet emperor, they persuaded Henry Pu Yi, the last surviving member of the old Manchu dynasty that had fallen in 1911, to formally sit on the throne.

In the meantime, the Chinese government had complained to the League of Nations under Article 11, and to the United States under the Paris Pact (Kellogg–Briand Pact). But there was too much deliberation and no practical help. The League Council met several times to discuss the Manchurian situation. On November 21, the Japanese delegation upheld the original Chinese proposal for an impartial Commission of inquiry, but the members were not chosen until January 14, 1932, and they did not reach Mukden until April 21. By that time, Manchuria had become Manchukuo.

The League Commission, called the Lytton Commission after its chairman, Lord Lytton, gave its report in October 1932. Cautiously worded so as not to offend the Japanese, it termed the Japanese aggression as an unjustifiable act and held the new Manchukuo state a Japanese puppet regime. On the other hand, it stopped short of asking Japan to get out. Instead, the report sought solution in recognising Japan's special interest in Manchuria and making that province an autonomous state under Chinese sovereignty but with the Japanese in control. On February 25, 1933, after the League accepted the report, Japan walked out of the body within a month.

With hindsight, the Manchurian affair appears as the first serious blow delivered to the League of Nations and at the whole diplomatic system organised to maintain the status quo — Versailles' Settlement, the Washington Conference agreements and the Paris Pact. The manner in which Japan had obtained its rich new possession was not lost upon the right-wing leaders of Italy and Germany; Manchuria inaugurated a chain reaction of aggressions that eventually led to World War II.

What was the Nature of Miltarism In Japan? The period after decline of Feudalism saw the creation of a modern, centrally governed state, the enormous development of the economy and industry and military domination at home and rapid conquests and expansion, ending in a national disaster of the greatest magnitude, the destruction of most Japanese cities, the surrender of armed forces and foreign occupation of the century. Japan's war with China marked the end of the restoration period and the beginning of a new age, the period of Japanese Militarism and Asian expansion.

Modernisation of Japan, combined with a sense of national pride, the growth of population, the industrial development, etc., had contributed to the rise of Militarism in Japan. It was during the late 1920s and the early 1930s that a new tide of Militarism coupled with Nationalism swept through Japan, which took alarming proportions by 1937. This new tide of Nationalism was because of the right wing political parties and the army and their historic role in shaping Japan into a war country. The army which predominantly dominated the Japanese politics was thinking of war conquest; its officers highly educated, but with little knowledge of international politics advocated expansion of the empire by force of army, which culminated into a national disaster after the World War II.

Militarism in Japan satisfied all the features of European Fascism. Japanese Militarism, like Fascist movements in Europe, was anti-democratic and authoritarian in nature. It was dominated by the military warlords who concluded that Japan's interests could be satisfied only under a totalitarian regime. Thus, the power came increasingly under the war minister and the Navy minister who generally dominated the Japanese politics.

The totalitarian feature of Japanese Militarism also meant that it was not a peaceful movement and anti-war but vice versa, dominated by ultra-nationalism. Ultra-nationalists started operating in Japan to reduce the influence of liberal organisations. An ultra-nationalist society was started in 1910; then came the Greater Japan Nationalist Society in 1919. They began to attack the corruption prevailing among the political parties and the Zaibatsu. It was argued that a glorious future lay ahead of Japan if control of power was given to the army, the only incorruptible force in Japan.

Another striking feature of Japanese Militarism was that it was ant-communist and hence pro-capitalist. Russia was the natural enemy of Japan as their interests clashed over Manchuria and other parts of Asia. Time and again, both the countries clashed and these took some serious ideological differences. Since the rise of Bolsheviks, the relations between these two countries were never good. Apart from this, Japan was also concerned with the colonial expansion based on capitalist lines which was seriously resented by Russia at various times. This probably was one main feature that made Japan to sign Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, both of whom stood for Capitalism.

Though these are some of the features common to all the right-wing regime of contemporary world, yet Japan retained some original features exclusive to its Militarism. The Japanese totalitarianism retained a Japanese pattern shaped by the absence of individualism, and no 'Further' or 'Duce' emerged. Surprisingly, it still retained some principles of democracy especially borrowed from western nations; personality cult was absent here and the emperor (Micado) was still recognised as a symbol of unity and a common rallying point 'for the whole nation.'

Why did it Rise? After the restoration, Japanese politics was for some time dominated by oligarchies. Later the equation enlarged and she was dominated political parties, bureaucracy and the Zaibatsu. Zaibatsu played an important role from World War I when they started to cultivate intimacy with the political parties and the bureaucracy. The first political part was 'Jiyu-To' or liberal party out of which came the 'Seiyukai' in 1881. During the first general elections of 1890, ten political factions were formed. The Seiyukai obtained an absolute majority in 1920 elections under conservative Hara. He tried to replace military heads by civilians in the colonies. He also resisted labour movement and social legislation and was believed to be corrupt. His party lasted only for six months after his death in 1921. The next party of importance was 'Minseito' which advocated a moderate programme of peaceful expansion of foreign trade, a policy of consolidation in dealing with foreign countries and domestic retrenchment. The 'Seiukai', on the other hand, stood for positive programme of energetic diplomatic and military activity. In 1924, Tanaka, the leader of Seiyukai party became the premier of Japan and he stressed on the Japanese hegemony in Asia, but had to bow down because of the opposition of Zaibatsu in 1929. Minseito which came to power under Mamaguchi was strongly criticised for its domestic as well as foreign policies. It failed to tackle the World Depression, and failed in international affairs by accepting the London Treaty which contained the naval power of Japan. A young fanatic shot Hamaguchi in 1930, and in December 1931 Seiyukai came to power, but Inukai its premier was assassinated putting an end to democratic institutions in Japan.

The political parties in Japan were grounded in personal loyalties and were not dedicated to the party principles. Besides, there were a number of splinter groups that did not hesitate to shift their political allegiance. On account of this weakness of the political parties, the aristocracy, the bureaucracy and the military was aided by the Zaibatsu, controlled the government. The clandestine affairs between the political parties and the business giants made the people not only to be cautious but also suspect Zaibatsu and the political parties. The drift towards Fascism could have stopped if political parties, Minseito and Seiyukai, had unity among them. Even in a critical period like this they fought with each other which led only to their own ruin.

Ever after the Restoration, the 'Samurai' had always played a significant role in Japanese politics. Right from 1895 to 1945, the military clique retained real control, the power being in the hands of War Minister and Navy Minister, both being military officers. With the rise of parliamentary government, the bureaucracy, political parties and Zaibatsu checked the power of the army but could never destroy it entirely. The internal balance shifted toward the army when bureaucracy shifted its allegiance from the parties to the army. This new combination ruled Japan for more than a decade from 1920 to 1930s. Before assuming full power the army had to resolve its inner conflicts between two factions—imperial faction and the control faction. The first group led by junior officers believed in direct action and in elimination of Zaibatsu. The second group consisting of high ranking officers was against direct action and terrorist methods. It was this group which ultimately captured power. The financial clique that had backed the political parties now realised that the parties had lost their popular support, and wasted no time in adjusting themselves with the army's programme rather than fight it. Thus, by 1941 Japan was completely under the dominance of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, an exclusive and official political party controlled by the army.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, imperialism was not condemned instead it was admired and approved. The western nations were engaged in the scramble for colonies in Asia and Africa. If Japan wanted to be recognised as modern power, she had to show that she also can become an imperialist power, superior to the weak neighbours and also willing to control them. It is also interesting to see that the various parties and politicians who most vigorously opposed this were also most active and vocal advocates of war, conquests and acquisition of colonies. The Japanese were also convinced that their rulers were right to claim that only force mattered in international affairs. These imperialist designs of Japan were further strengthened because of its rapid industrialisation. Heavy industries such as steel, machinery and ship building started growing even before the World War I. Now the emphasis was on increasing the production. In the beginning, the availability of cheap labour put Japan in a favourable position in world markets. Japan had sufficient coal, hydro-power and copper, but lacked iron-ore. Hence she depended upon import of ore for her agricultural and chemical industries. Japan, thus, naturally needed suppliers of raw materials and market. This economic necessity explains to a large extent the colonial policy followed by Japan between the two wars. With the acquisition of Manchuria, and certain provinces of China, she got control over the resources of raw materials and markets. The growing population of Japan needed an outlet and her colonies fulfilled this need.

Various secret societies like Black Ocean Society and the Black Dragon Society supported the militarists. In addition to these, militaristic societies like Ex-servicemen's Association propagated militarism in every book and corner of the country. They controlled the education based on ultra-nationalistic lines, and wholeheartedly supported the expansionist policy of Japan. A justification given for heavy taxation was that it was necessary for military budget.

America with the consent of England decided to call a disarmament conference to discuss the problems of East Asia and the Pacific. It produced three treaties and adopted several resolutions in 1921. One of the treaties provided to stop the ruinous naval competition, which greatly checked the Navy of Japan. This was a dissatisfied agreement Japan had to enter.

The repeal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the passage of American Immigration Law further restricting Japanese immigration, the inferior Naval ratio (London Naval Agreement, 1930), and the like developments in the twenties further aroused the pride of the sentimental Japanese. This gradually developed into a feeling of insecurity when Britain started construction of a naval base at Singapore evidently directed against Japan. Japan which was isolated now, thought to break the ring and it struck Manchuria in 1931. These were the factors which led Japan to expand its frontiers.

Inukai Tsu-Yoshi became the Prime Minister in 1931. His cabinet supported the army activities in Manchuria. Large military appropriations were made. Many people were killed, which was the work of a group of army officers and cadets who called themselves 'Blood Brotherhood'. In May 1932, Inukai was assassinated. After this, till 1941 almost nine cabinets changed. The Japanese followed the dictates of military leaders because of the crisis, which many believed could be solved effectively by the army in the domestic political situation. It is perhaps because of this that that Japanese welcomed the militarist cabinets till 1942.

Earlier, by 1929, Japan had not closed the gap between imports and exports. So the Japanese government followed a policy of encouraging less consumption and more production. The World Depression of 1929 had affected Japan; its exports dropped by more than 30%. In order to achieve the recovery, Japan adopted an inflationary policy in 1931. Instead of increasing taxes to balance the budget, it increased currency circulation. This devalued the Yen. Gradually Japan could recover and its exports had increased by 20% by 1936. Depression hit hard the agriculture sector. Many peasants went to join the army. The military officers, on the other hand, wanted to relieve the pressure of the farmers in Japan by expanding the Japanese territories into Manchuria and China. They openly propagated that the Japanese occupation of Manchuria could alone solve the varied economic problems.

How did it Grow? The attempts of the militarists to capture power in Japan reached a turning point when Minseito party won the elections in 1936. Four days after the election results, some junior officials led a regimental revolt in Tokyo to overthrow the government. Though this coup ended in a failure, the power of the militarists increased and the moderates realised that there was nothing that could stop the extremists. They conceded the restoration of the practice that the war minister and the navy minister had to be military officers on active service; a major triumph of militarists.

The Hirota Cabinet accepted the sevenpoint programme, called 'National Political Renovation'. By it, the government was committed to expand armament, the stock piling of the materials of war, giving full support to the Japanese army in Manchuria and rigid control of education. This meant that the government was under the control of the military.

In November 1936, Japan signed Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany. Later Italy joined it. This ended the diplomatic isolation of Japan and increased the influence of right extremists in the country. Japan thus headed towards a military dictatorship that seemed to have been a tide towards Totalitarianism.

The National Mobilisation Act of 1938 virtually ended the parliamentary government in Japan. This enabled bureaucracy to take power from legislature. Military was highly successful and it completed the totalitarian structure in the country. Military now controlled the industry, prohibited strikes and disputes, and made mediation compulsory in both cases.

All the above Acts and culminated into a single party dominance by 1941. Imperial Rule Assistance Association, an exclusive official party controlled by the army, took Japan to the war front.

What was its Outcome? Japan followed an aggressive policy towards Manchuria from 1930s onwards. Manchuria was a vast territory, with abundant economic resources. It is much not only in agricultural products but also rubber, coal, iron and gold mines. Manchuria was considered strategically important. Naturally China claimed it to be part of her, but had been subjected Russian and Japanese control. Chinese nationalist Kuo-min Tang (KMT) government considered Manchuria as the 'first line' of the defence of their country, while the Japanese considered it as 'life line'. The Lio-tung Peninsula came to Japan, after the Russo-Japanese war, for a period of 99 years.

The South Manchuria railway came to be controlled by Japan, which slowly crept into the administration and political factions in that area. This was followed by a series of events like Korean presence in Manchuria, attempts to build parallel railroads, China's refusal to repay loans of 150 million yen and the assassination of a Japanese captain in 1931, which ultimately culminated in the invasion of Manchuria. The immediate pretext was the destruction of a section of South Manchurian Railway in a bomb explosion, the Japanese reacted to this by seizing Mukden. In three months, the Japanese extended their authority in almost the whole of Manchuria. On the appeal of China, the League of Nations issued an order to withdraw from the territory, but Japan ignored it. Later Japan expanded its colonial tentacles to Inner Mongolia (1933) and Northern China (1935). In 1933, Japan withdrew from the League and continued with its aggrandisement.

In 1935 Hirota, the P.M. of Japan, proposed a three point programme to settle the Sino-Japanese dispute, which had become a crisis especially after the 1935 Northern China conflict. According to the programme, it proposed to end anti-Japan activity, recognise Manchukuo and to accept help in suppressing communism. However, the anti-Japanese feeling increased in China. The Chinese nationalists and the communists joined hands and the Japanese property in China was destroyed. On July 7, 1937 a local feud broke out between Chinese and Japanese forces. Thus started what is known as the 'Undeclared War' on China. Japan tried to destabilise the KMT government and tried to establish a popular government on the lines of Manchukuo. However, its authority was questioned in many parts of china. Finally, Japan resorted to economic blockade of China in 1939, and this war assumed serious proportions on account of World War II. The rise of Hitler and Mussolini had posed great danger to the democracies of the World. Japanese activities were also looked with suspicion by Britain, America and other powers. The relations with Russia were already strained because of Mongolia. As a result, Japan was isolated. It was this isolation which brought Japan close to Nazism and in the pact that followed (Anti-Comintern) in 1936, they agreed to suppress the menace of communism. A year later Italy joined it. In 1940 the tripartite countries signed a pact which agreed to mutual cooperation in recognising Japan, mutual military aid in the event of war, etc.

In 1939, World War II broke out and Japan announced that she was not interested in the European struggle. However, in 1910 after the fall of Holland, France and Belgium, Britain entered the fray. Now Japan exploited the situation thoroughly. It extracted a humiliating agreement from China and secured the right of sending troops into China. Japan also requested a large share of oil, rubber and thin form Dutch East Indies.

Japan was very successful in the war initially. In 1941, England and Netherlands declared war on Japan. With the help of China, Japan took over Hong Kong in 1941. Japan continued her victories and conquered Manila, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch Indies and Burma in 1942. Though Japan had no war directly with the USA, Japan was hit by USA's embargo which made the Japanese to declare war against the USA and bombed the Pearl Harbour (1941).

These initial victories were put to an end by England and the USA when they defeated Japanese near Philippines in 1943. Now the allies attacked Japan itself and with Yalta Conference, USSR entered the war against Japan, Russia invaded Manchuria; in Europe Hitler was defeated; Americans tightened the blockade on Japanese islands and on August 6, the USA dropped the first atom bomb on Hiroshima and the second on August 9, 1945 on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

By the war Japan was almost reduced to ashes. The defeat of Japan resulted in the loss of all her political power and the USA occupied Japan till 1951. Her defeat also resulted in loss of all her colonies, not only those occupied during the World War II, but also all the territorial possessions she had acquired since Meiji Restoration — islands of Kuriles, Shakalin, etc., to the USSR, Manchuria and Formosa to China, Korea to USA and USSR.

The impact of war was severe on Japan. As such it was in deplorable condition even during the war. The imports were almost entirely cut off, and she suffered an estimated destruction of 30% of urban property and a loss of 3.5 lakhs of human lives.

World War Ii: Causes And Consequences

A great controversy is still going on about the origins or who and what was responsible for the Second World War. The Versailles Settlement had been held responsible for making the Germans bitter and vengeful; the League of Nations and the idea of collective security have been found fault with due to their failure to secure general disarmament and to control potential aggressors; the World Depression has been cited, since without it Hitler would probably not have been there. All of them were undoubtedly responsible for creating the kind of tensions which might well lead to war, but something more was obviously needed for the war. Besides, it should also be kept in mind that by the end of 1938 most of the grievances of Germany had been redressed. Reparations, for instance, were largely cancelled; the disarmament clauses had been ignored; the Rhineland was remilitarised; Austria and Germany were united, and 3.5 million Germans had been recovered from Czechoslovakia. England had even offered some compensation for lost German colonies. Then, what was that something more that was needed?

A large number of historians blame Hitler for the War. For Hitler wanted not only to destroy Poland but also to conquer and annex Russia. Others, however, feel that the policy of appeasement of other great powers like England and France towards Nazi Germany was equally to blame. These powers should have taken a tough stand with Hitler before Germany had become too strong. An Anglo-French attack, for instance, on Western Germany in 1936 at the time of the Rhineland occupation would have taught Hitler a lesson. Surprisingly, even the Soviet Union has sometimes been accused of making war inevitable by signing the non-aggression pact with Germany. Notwithstanding all this controversy, we may venture to say that Hitler was largely responsible, for it was he who provided that extra something needed for the war. In fact, majority of the historians are in agreement with a prominent German historian who says: 'Hitler's urge to bring things to a head so shaped events that any wish to compromise on the part of the western powers was bound to come to nothing. The entire career was oriented towards War'.

The war resulted in a massive human carnage and destruction of property both in Europe and Asia. Yet there was no all-inclusive peace settlement of the kind reached at Versailles at the end of World War I. This was so mainly due to the re-emergence of the suspicion and distrust between the USSR and the West in the final months of the War, making a comprehensive settlement impossible. The War, however, stimulated rapid social and scientific developments, the two most significant being the Beveridge Report which was a British plan for introducing a welfare state, and the production of nuclear weapons which have so scaring a potential for death and misery that they must have acted as a deterrent from another global war. Besides as war had a number of other long-term effect which were to set the pattern of world events for the rest of the century, such as the end of European domination of the world, rise of the USA and USSR as the two Super Powers and their rivalry as seen in the Cold War, acceleration of the process of 'decolonisation' in Asia and Africa, birth of the UNO as an organ of World peace and harmony, etc.

What was the Nature of World War II? The greatest and most destructive war in the history of humanity took place between 1939 and 1945 in which all major countries were involved to prove their superiority over the other. Unlike in the First World War where warfare was conducted primarily on the European continent, this Second World War included gigantic struggles not only in Europe, but in Asia, Africa, and the far-flung islands of the Pacific Oceans as well. Its course strained the economic capabilities of the major nations and left many countries on the verge of virtual collapse.

The war, which was begun by the Germans in September 1939, was later described as the 'Unnecessary War' by the British wartime Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. More than once chances did come in the way of the other powers to prevent it, which they failed to grab. Their reasons had varied in details, but basically the cause had been the unwillingness to face the truth — a belief that peace could be secured by ignoring disagreeable facts. Hitler had never taken the trouble to conceal his objectives; anybody who bothered to read his book, Mein Kampf or listen to his speeches in Germany could have known of them. The conservatives of France and Britain for a long time believed that Hitler, like themselves, was interested only in putting down communism and breaking the power of labour organisations, the Russian Communists felt that they could make him into an ally, and the Americans believed that they could simply contract out of world history.

What were its Causes? The Treaty of Versailles, signed by Germany with the victorious Allies, was an unjustifiable one, as its terms were harsh. Germany, in fact, had no choice but to sign it. Unconditionally, she had to surrender a great part of her territory, and her colonies were forcibly taken away.

She was also asked to pay a huge war indemnity which she was in no opposition to do. Moreover, her military power was considerably reduced. The treatment meted out to her was, thus, based on the spirit of revenge. Consequently, the treaty created hatred in the minds of all Germans. It was a black spot for them and they wanted to remove it. This, they felt, could be realised only through force and hence the massive rearmament of Germany.

The harsh treatment meted out to the vanquished, including Germany, was mainly due to the vengeful attitude of France. France did not stop with its revenge after the war; instead in 1923, she captured the German industrial zone of 'Ruhr'. Prior to this, Germany had to cede to France, according to the terms of the Versailles Treaty, the Valley of Saar, the region which was the major supplier of coal and iron to Germany. The loss of Saar of Ruhr, turned the German democratic rule to military dictatorship.

Both England and France had large colonies in Asia and Africa, while Germany had been deprived of all her colonies in 1919. Consequently, her industries suffered as it lost the most coveted overseas sources for supply of raw materials as well as markets for her finished goods. Italy too was not satisfied with the spoils from the war, which made her to be on the lookout for colonies. Japan too was searching for colonies for her ballooning population and industrial development. England and France were possessive about their colonies and wanted to prevent Germany or any of her allies from acquiring colonies elsewhere in the world. So, the conflict of the imperialistic designs of different nations was made inevitable. Soon, Japan captured Manchuria, while Italy occupied Abyssinia and Albania. Germany was not to be left behind and she acquired some territories by force.

In Germany, the democratic government under Democratic Socialists failed to deliver the goods, finally making way to dictatorship under the Nazis. By 1934, Hitler manoeuvred himself into power and became the dictator of Germany. He out rightly rejected the Treaty of Versailles and enhanced his military strength besides remilitarising the Rhineland. He desired to restore the old glory and prestige to Germany, and thus make it a major super power in the world. It was precisely for this reason that he followed the path of war. In the case of Italy, she joined World War I with high hopes of acquiring more territories, but its results dashed all her hopes. Consequently, dictatorship was established there in 1921–22 under the leadership of Mussolini. He introduced many reforms and put a new life in the people of Italy by giving military training to them. He wanted to revive the glory of the Old Roman Empire. So, Italy, like Germany, adopted a policy of active aggrandisement. Japan's ambitions too increased after the World War I. By 1930s, she developed her navy and enhanced her strength tremendously. In the early 30s, the military junta completely took the power into its hands, and under its leadership, Japan launched itself on the path of expansion.

To the Japanese, the year 1931 seemed a logical time to embark upon this expansionist policy. Raising the slogan of 'Save Asia from Communism', they declared that it was their duty to take up a movement against Communism in Asia. Taking advantage of a small incident in South Manchuria, the Japanese moved in. When China appealed to the western powers for support, the USA protested to Japan, but without positive results. Unmindful of the international opinion, Japan created the puppets state of Manchukuo, Jehol and Chahar in China were occupied in 1933 and 1935 respectively. Other neighbouring provinces were added until, in 1936, Japan controlled most of North-Eastern China. Yet, only mild protests came from western powers. Japan's response to these was to withdraw from the League. In April 1934, Japan announced a Japanese version of 'Monroe Doctrine' which stated that henceforth she would be 'guardian of the peace of the Pacific'. In 1936, Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was joined by Italy a year later. Meanwhile, she continued her aggression in China. Shanghai and Nanking were taken and, in 1939, South China was invaded and most of the coastline occupied. The outbreak of war in Europe fitted neatly with Japanese plans.

The success of Japan in the Far East greatly influenced the policies of Mussolini: he also sent his forces into Ethiopia in order to emulate his Japanese counterparts. England protested, had discussions with Hitler and put pressure on France. The latter had to withdraw her consent for Mussolini to attack Ethiopia. Through England's influence, the League took action against Mussolini, but was not successful in checking his aggression. Ignoring the League, he completed the conquest of Ethiopia with a grand flourish.

Mussolini's star, already in the ascendant, was soon followed by Hitler's which was an even brighter one. The latter had plans similar to those of the former. The confusion in international politics during the Ethiopia crisis gave him an opportunity to take his first step—the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Further, he signed the Rome–Berlin agreement, by which Mussolini signed Austria over to Hitler and in return Hitler recognised Mussolini's conquest of Ethiopia. The two also agreed to form a united front in Spain to oppose Communism. In 1936, he denounced international control of German rivers as provided in the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938, he moved into Austria which provoked a mild protest from England. The next move was against Czechoslovakia. England agreed that the Czechs would have to give up Sudetenland. This was only an appetiser; it was not enough to satisfy Hitler. So the Munich Conference allowed Hitler to have one fifth of Czechoslovakia. After signing a non-aggression pact with Russia, in August, 1939, Hitler made his move against Poland, which began the World War II.

The inability of the League of Nations to function as an agency to promote international justice and maintain peace is the greatest disappointment to international-minded people. Its weaknesses are apparent, and its failure to settle the latest disputes makes us question its value. Japan repudiated the League and no effective action was taken against her, in spite of condemnatory evidence presented in the Lytton Report. Germany withdrew from the League and proceeded to violate almost every article of the Treaty of Versailles. The severest blow of all was Italy's defiance of the League in the conquest of Ethiopia. The general chaotic condition in international affairs that followed the failure of the League was widespread.

League of Nations, 1920–46

In the post-World War I period, the USA reverted to its traditional policy of isolation, and kept aloof from the European politics and did not even join the League of Nations, which was ironically the brainchild of President Wilson. Consequently, England all alone could not prevent France from ill-treating Germany. Germany could never forget the humiliation she had to suffer at the hands of France and hence plunged the whole World once again into darkness. American aloofness helped the military rulers of Germany and Italy to adopt violent and aggressive attitude and they ignored the League easily.

The World War I was followed by several adjustments in the territories of different nations. Many territories were added to such countries which had entirely different cultures. Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., were such states. The minorities of these states were not satisfied because they failed to get all the facilities for their development. Such people greatly resented the step-motherly treatment meted out to them. The principle of self-determination which was emphasised by allies fanned the fire of nationalism and political freedom among these minorities. When the German subjects of these states revolted, Hitler annexed them on the pretext of helping the Germans. This was a prelude to the World War II.

How was it Fought Out? The bitter struggles and the enormous casualties suffered by Great Britain and France in World War I had made their military leaders to take a defensive attitude with reliance on such permanent fortifications as the Maginot Line and on blockade as means of subduing a resurgent Germany. Placing their faith in the inept League of Nations, both countries neglected the development of armaments and allowed their armed forces to deteriorate. The Germans, on the other hand, smarting under their failure in World War I to capitalise on initial breakthrough of the Allied lines because of lack of sustained power, developed fast, hard hitting 'tank aeroplane' forces and the strategy of the 'blitzkrieg' (lightening war). Since they had been disarmed by the allies, they were unencumbered by obsolete armaments and could equip their forces with the most modern weapons. As a result, initial German operations met with surprisingly rapid success.

Hitler, after surprising the World with the announcement of a non-aggression pact with his sworn enemy, the Union, sent his armies across the Polish border on 1st September 1939. Britain and France, pledged to support Poland in the event of aggression, declared war on Germany two days later. In less than a month, Poland had been conquered. There followed an inactive period (dubbed the phoney war) that lasted until April 1940. Then, despite Allied intervention, the Germans quickly seized Denmark and Norway. In May, the 'blitzkrieg' struck the western front in all its fury. Within six weeks, the British were thrown out of the continent and the French were compelled to surrender. The speed of the advance surprised Hitler, who was not ready to follow his success with an invasion of the British Isles. The Luftwaffe (German air force) called upon to soften the islands and gain air superiority while preparations were made for invasion, met a stunning reverse at the hands of the small but highly competent and brave Royal Air Force. Frustrated in the West, Hitler turned against the USSR in June 1941. In a series of spectacular military manoeuvres several million Russians were captured. He reached the gates of Moscow in December, only to be stopped by bad weather, and Russian reinforcements rushed to defend the city.

Mussolini, on the other hand, attempted to realise his dream of an Italian Mediterranean Empire. In the last summer and fall of 1940, he launched an offensive from Libya against the British in Egypt invasion of Greece from Albania (which was occupied in 1939). Both enterprises eventually proved disastrous for the Italians and German forces were sent to their rescue. Greece fell to the Germans, but they met stiff British opposition in Africa. In December 1941, Japan thought the time to be ripe to extend her empire into a greater East Asia, which it did rapidly against meagre opposition. It was the Japanese plan to fortify this area so strongly as to withstand American counter-attacks and eventually gain a negotiated peace based on the status quo. The attacks on Pearl Harbour and the Philippines brought the USA into war and greatly tilted the scales in favour of the Allies.

The year 1942 witnessed the turn of the tide for the Allies, In June, Japanese naval airpower was destroyed by theAmerican navy in the Battle of Midway. Having been checked at Moscow, Hitler turned to the American navy in the Battle of Midway. Having been checked at Moscow, Hitler turned to the Caucasus, but the Germans were routed and turned back at Stalingrad by the Russians in the closing months of the year. At the same time, the British delivered a blow to the Germans and the Italians at El Alamein that sent them reeling in retreat westward along the African Mediterranean Coast. In Tunisia, they encountered newly landed British and American forces and were expelled from Africa in May 1943.

The Allies now had the initiative and took the offensive on all fronts with the vast production facilities of the USA in full operation. Resistance was bitter and progress slow though inexorable. From bases in Africa, the Allies invaded and captured Sicily in July–August 1943. In September, Italy was forced out of the War. British, American and French forces began a methodical and relentless advance up the Italian Peninsula against the Germans, who had been rushed into defend it. After Stalingrad, the Russians, in a series of alternating offensives, gradually forced the German's back with heavy losses, until by 1945 they were approaching Berlin.

In the wake of a massive build-up of troops, air and naval power and equipment in the British Isles, the combined American, British and French troops landed on the Normandy Coast of France in June 1944 and pressed the Germans back to the west wall. There, in December 1944, the Germans launched a final counter-attack which failed. Aided by troops landed in Southern France from Italy, the Allies forced the Germans back across the Rhine River and deep into Germany. Surrounded from all sides, and their major cities devastated by aerial bombardment, the Germans finally capitulated on 5th May 1945. Due to lack of resources, Allied strategy had envisioned the prior defeat of Germany while remaining on the defensive against the Japanese. Only after victory in Europe would the full Allied power be applied to Japan. American industrial production increased so rapidly, however, that limited offensives could be initiated against the Japanese as early as August 1942. Thereafter, a persistent two-pronged offensive steadily pushed the Japanese back. By the fall of 1944, American forces were landing in the Philippines and regained the islands the next spring. Then the island of Okinawa was captured and preparations began for the invasion of the home islands. Meanwhile, the Japanese position in Asia progressively deteriorated. By the summer of 1945, with its navy and air force virtually destroyed, and cut off from sources of supply of much-needed raw materials, the Japanese saw the writing on the wall. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria hastened their decision to surrender which they did on 14th August 1945.

What was its Impact?

The impact of the World War II was much greater than that of World War I. Vanquished powers like Germany, Japan and Italy were no doubt destroyed, but among the victorious nations, France and England also became much weaker than before and lost most of their former glory and prestige. The political impact could be seen in the rise of two Super Powers and the division of the world into two rival blocks, establishment of the UNO, decolonisation of many Afro-Asian nations, etc.

World War II spread death and devastation throughout the world to an extent never before experienced. The loss of life can only be generally summarised, an attempt to express the value of property and livelihood destroyed in terms of money is futile; the resulting sums reach astronomic figures that have little, if any, practical meaning. Many big cities along with their beautiful historical buildings were reduced to ashes. It is said that Europe from the Baltic to Black Sea presented a tragic sight of ruined cities, bridges, devastated fields and concentration camps. A large number of persons lost their homes and native lands. They became refugees and suffered untold miseries. Devastated lands and factories brought agricultural and industrial production to a standstill. The prices of things shot up like anything. The scarcity of food, clothing and shelter caused sickness, suffering and death. The war greatly weakened various governments and fought chaos and anarchy everywhere.

The war resulted in the emergence of the USA and the USSR as the two Super Powers in the world. By the time of the signing of the Axis satellite treaties (Italian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Hungarian and Finnish Peace Treaties) early in 1947, the two countries were drawing apart. Friction over the treaties with Austria, Germany and Japan and Soviet aggressive designs in Eastern Europe brought increasing tension, and by the end of 1948, their relationship could be considered one of the Cold War. In 1950, armed conflict arose in Korea between Sovietbacked Communist Forces and the UN forces led by the USA. The Cold War between the Soviet Territorial Gains after World War II East and West continued thereafter, with the Communists striving for World domination through subversion and infiltration and the West seeking to frustrate their designs through equally foul means.

The vanquished Germany was divided into two parts, viz., East Germany and West Germany. The USSR took control over the eastern part, while England, France, and the USA occupied the western part. Germany's capital, Berlin, was also divided into two parts. Millions of Germans, both civilian and the military, perished during the war. The German army was reduced and all her war material was snatched away from her. The Allies tried the war criminals and some stalwarts of the Nazi party were executed. Thus, the war resulted in the division of Germany and in the end of Nazism.

The impact of the war on Italy and Japan was also severe. The Japanese Emperor was deprived of this powers and prestige. The American general, Mac Arthur, was given the complete control of Japan. He set up limited monarchy in Japan. In Italy, Mussolini was removed as early as 1943, and after the war, a democratic government was established. However, both Japan and Italy were deprived of their conquests and colonies. Their military power was reduced and they were forced to pay heavy war indemnity. Thus Fascism in Italy and Militarism in Japan were blotted out.

Some of the allied powers like England and France had also suffered and became weaker than before. The economic loss suffered by England made her a second-rate power in the World. In fact, it lost its supreme position to the USA and the USSR who had now emerged as the two super powers in the world. France also had lost most of her former power and prestige. Besides, it witnesses too much of a political instability after the war, which further undermined her position as a world power. In fact, they became the satellites of USA after the war.

The humanity was awe-struck at the destruction caused by the World War II. There was a general realisation among all the nations of the world (old as well as newly independent nations of Africa and Asia) that peace should be preserved at any cost. This realisation was behind the foundation of the United Nations Organisation in 1945. If there were to be another world war, particularly after the discovery of the atomic bomb, there would be nobody left to see the light of the day and there would be no difference between the vanquished and the victorious. Consequently, every nation became quite willing to extend all possible help to the UNO for establishing and maintaining World Peace.

World War II gave a boost to Nationalism and started the process of decolonisation in Asia and Africa. The European colonial empires began to crumble one by one partly because of the nationalist movements in the colonies and partly because of the inability of the colonial powers to maintain their former hold on the colonies. The British colonies of India, Burma, Ceylon, Malaya, etc., were granted independence one by one. The East Indies ended the Dutch rule and became the new independent nation of Indonesia. Indo-China also achieved independence from the French. Soon, the English, French, Portuguese, and the Dutch colonies in Africa also became free.