-----------
AFGHANISTAN IS THE ONLY NATION NOW.... 10 years before and after that show the incredible miracles because foreign troops, Afghan troops and the actual people of Afghanistan stood up and reconconstucted again again and again.... that kind of persistance and determination for the good of liberty, freedom and humanity will always win..imho
-----------------
AFGHANISTAN IS THE ONLY NATION NOW.... 10 years before and after that show the incredible miracles because foreign troops, Afghan troops and the actual people of Afghanistan stood up and reconconstucted again again and again.... that kind of persistance and determination for the good of liberty, freedom and humanity will always win..imho
-------------
UN $$$WAR MACHINE NATIONS-
what have u done- humanity oh humanity- we weep Syria's heritage in ruins:
before-after pictures http://gu.com/p/3m6n7/stw
----------------
UNITED NATIONS-2016- what
have u done to humanity? u were formed on the ashes of the Holocaust of League
of Nations (1929-1945) for humanity- UN war mongrel nations...what have u done
to our beautiful planet??? our
beautiful troops treated like throwaway playtoys for the $$$rich men of war
...sigh - Before-and-After Photos Show
What 9 Cities Looked Like Before They Were Destroyed by War by @hycieeeee http://mic.com/articles/89585/before-and-after-photos-show-what-9-cities-looked-like-before-they-were-destroyed-by-war#.TNLGCgQ3i
-------------
Halifax Explosion:
The Aftermath and Relief Efforts (1917)
Actual footage
following the 1917 Explosion in Halifax, showing devastation and the relief
effort, beginning with activities the day after the Explosion and following the
reconstruction in the north end of Halifax, including the Hydrostone housing
project.
Filmmaker: W.G.
MacLaughlan
For more
information on the archives and these films, please visit: http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/ns...
-----------------
1.
The
“War On Terror” Is A $6 Trillion Racket ... - ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-terror-is-a-6-trillion-racket-exceeding-the-total-cost-of-world-war-ii/25531
Jul 6, 2011 ... ... budgets; Promised $5.3 billion reconstruction aid
for Afghanistan; Additional .... 'War on terror' set to surpass cost of Second World
War ... Stanley McChrystal, fired last summer after a damning Rolling Stone
article, has ...
-----------
Peace and War
The period from 1918 to 1948 was one of lost peace, of unrest, instability, economical crisis, crimes, suffering, war and eventually the cold war and peace.Synopsis
With the armistice of 11 November, 1918 quiet descends on Europe for the first time in over four years. Among the casualties the First World War is liberal idealism and confidence in the achievements of science and technical advance to further the progress of man. Into the void will come a new and darker idealism forged in the fires of war and destruction. With the unhappy peace treaty of Versailles, come the arbitrary drawing of lines on a map, the sundering of empires and peoples, the creation of convenient catch-all nations, the treachery of politics. The flowering of Fascism in Italy emboldens those who have similar designs in other countries. Political unrest and instability quickly devolve into the inflation of 1923 and after a brief period of recovery, when the nations seemed to have found their footing, to the Great Depression of 1929.As the world struggles into the 1930's the democracies of the west will suffer a crises of confidence, and the fledgling Weimar Republic of Germany will be guided onto the rocks of totalitarianism by an unhappy concurrence of men and events. The League of Nations, the only real achievement of the victors of the Great War is never properly empowered by it's member nations who do not wish to surrender any bit of sovereignty in the interest of collective security and will sputter out of existence. The stage is set for the emergence of Hitler, the evil of Stalinism and the brutal militarism of the Japanese Army and it's savaging of China. The democratic West, under seige by doubt, division and economic hardship will prove to be not equal to the demands of peace and as the thirties come to a close, Europe and the world are again plunged into war. The violence of total war will be hurled onto soldier and civilian alike. Nearly all of Europe and half of China and the vast Pacific regions will feel the terrors of war before the final victory of the Allied Nations. When the dust settled in 45, some 60 million people had died in the war and in the worst crime that ever happened, the holocaust.
This time, the mistakes of Versailles will not be repeated after the war as the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of the devastated nations is implemented. Still it is an uneasy peace, beset with fears of tyranny and nuclear anihilation that blankets Europe, America and Asia as the frightening realites of the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union take hold. Eventually the West will demonstrate that it has well learned the folly of appeasement win the face of aggression. When Soviets try to bully Berlin into their occupation zone, they are defeated by the Berlin Airlift. With this, Western Germany is reassured of it's future and it's place with the Western democracies, the period of Soviet expansionism shifts from Europe to other places, setting the stage for the Cold War.
See
also other
timelines and our list of Armed Conflicts
1918-1948
Timeline
1917
|
October
|
With financial help from Imperial Germany the bolshevik
party under Lenin manages to attain power in Russia.
|
1918
|
March 3
|
In the Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk the war with Russia is ended. Russia renounces any authority in
Poland and the Baltic states and acknowledges the independence of Ukraine and
Finland. The Central powers do not demand reparations.
|
November 11
|
The "Great War" is ended by an armistice between
Germany and the Allied Powers, signed in Compiegne. The terms of the peace
treaty are to be made later. Until the actual peace treaty is signed, the
British blockade of Germany continues.
|
|
1919
|
January 18
|
Peace conference opens in Versailles. The main points are
negotiated between David Lloyd George (Great Britain), Georges Clemenceau
(France) and Woodrow Wilson (USA).
|
April 29
|
The constitution of the League
of Nations is accepted at the Parisienne peace conference and will be
included into the peace treaties as Article 1-26.
|
|
June 28
|
The Treaty of Versailles
is signed by Germany. Shortly later Austria, Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria
sign their own treaties. They include that Germany and the Central powers
take all responsibility for the war and demand full reperations especially
from Germany. The amount of the reparations remains open.
|
|
1920
|
November 15
|
First meeting of the full assembly of the Leage of Nations
in Geneva. The US does not enter the League.
|
1921
|
January 24-29
|
Conference in Paris on reparations proceeds without
participation of Germany. They decide that Germany has to pay 269 billion
Goldmarks and, for 42 years,12% of the value of German exports (another some
1-2 Billions a year). This excluded any reparations that Russia might demand.
German war expenses from 1914-18 amount to some 150 Billions. This money was
collected mainly via war bonds and has to be repaid by the state to the
population.
|
March 8
|
After Germany tries to negotiate the sum without success,
parts of the Ruhr area are occupied by France.
|
|
April 27
|
The German reparations are newly fixed to 132 Billion
Goldmarks, payable in 37 years.
|
|
May 1
|
Germany agrees to the conditions. The occupation of the
Ruhr area continues.
|
|
August 24/25
|
The US, not having signed the treaty of Versailles, makes
its own peace treaty with Germany and Austria.
|
|
November 12 -
Febr. 6 |
Washington Conference on
arms reduction successfully reduces the size of the US, British, Japanese,
French and Italian fleets. The participants agree on a tonnage-ration of
5:5:3:1,75:1,75 and not to build any new capital ships. The "Open door
policy" for China is concluded.
|
|
1922
|
April 16
|
In the German-Soviet treaty of Rapallo both sides take up diplomatic relations and agree that any
open questions resulting from the war are settled. With this the Sovietunion
renounces any claims due to the Versailles-Treaty (article 116). This
alienates France, which had planned to shift the huge Russian pre-war debts
to France (which the Sovietunion simply did not acknowledge) upon Germany.
|
October 28
|
The March on Rome - In
Italy the nationalist movement under Mussolini, disappointed with the results
of the war for Italy, takes power. Fascism and Antifascism start to become
competing ideologies.
|
|
1923
|
January 9-11
|
Over the vote of Great Britain the reparation comission
decides that Germany has neglected its coal delivery. France and Belgium
decide to send some engineers to the Ruhr area to speed up the German
deliveries. Five divisions with heavy weapons are sent with them for
protection, the Occupation of the Rhineland.
The US withdraws their troops from the still occupied areas of Germany.
|
January 13
|
German cancellor Cuno declares "passive resistance". Strikes, riots and
bloody clashes of the occupation troops with workers are common. The costs
for this are mainly financed by printing bills in Germany.
|
|
September 26
|
New cancellor Gustav Streseman ends the passive
resistance. The German Reich has reached it's economic and financial breaking
point.
|
|
October 21
|
With French support, separatists try to declare an
independent "Rhine Republic" in Aachen. The plan fails due to
resistance by the population and the British disapproval.
|
|
October 24
|
With French support, separatists try to declare an
independet "Autonomous Pfalz" in Speyer. With strong support from
the French military, they manage to hold on for some time. Eventually the
plan fails due to resistance of the population and the British disapproval.
Bavaria declared martial law to counter this autonomy movement. President
Ebert declared martial law in Germany to keep control of Bavaria.
|
|
Oktober
|
In Saxony and Thuringia the coalition-governments of KPD
and SPD protests against the prohibition of communist and socialist press.
The Reichwehr forces these governments to resign.
Although ordered to do so, the Bavarian government refuses to take any steps against a NSDAP-newspaper. The Bavarian government takes direct control over the local parts of the Reichswehr. Bloody street riots in Hamburg between communists and the police The inflation reaches an all time high. One US-Dollar costs 40 Billion Mark. On the pro-side to the government all the private war bonds (which are rated by Reichsmark, not Goldmark like the reparations) can be paid back without problems. All savings on banks (or in war bonds) are lost, leading to widespread poverty. |
|
November 9
|
The Beerhall Putch of
Hitler. Despite the fact that Ludendorf takes part, police and Reichswehr do
not support the putch but activley suppress it. The executive power is given
by president Ebert to General von Seeckt. Germany becomes de jure a military
government, but von Seeckt does not misuse his power.
Hitler is arrested and sentenced to fortress prison (which means without loss of honour). He is imprisoned at Landsberg where he writes "Mein Kampf". Six days after the putch a reform of the German currency takes place and the Rentenmark is introduced. This effectively ends the inflation. |
|
1924
|
April 9
|
The Dawes Plan is put
forward to stabilize the economic situation in Europe, to enable the Germans
to pay their reparations and the Allies to pay their debts to the US. It sets
an upper limit for payment of reparations and limits the time to 37 years.
The Motto is "Business, not politics".
|
July 16-
August 16 |
The Dawesplan is generally accepted on the London
conference.
|
|
October 5-16
|
The Locarno Conference
solves many open questions and is a first important step to a system of
collective security in Europe. Nationalists on all sides severly criticize
the treaty.
|
|
1926
|
September 8
|
Germany enters the League of Nations. The vote is
unanimous.
|
December 10
|
Nobel Peace Prize is shared by Gustav Stresemann of
Germany and Aristide Briand of France. The next years prize is also shared by
a German-French pair (L.Quidde and F. Buisson).
|
|
1928
|
August 27
|
The Kellogg-Briand Pact
is signed by 15 Nations, 39 more until the end of 29. It bans war as a tool
to solve international conflicts.
|
1929
|
February 9
|
Litinow-protocol. A non-aggression pact between the
Soviet-Union, Rumania, Poland Lithuania and Estonia.
|
August 6-31
|
First Haague conference. The proposed Young Plan further reduces the reparations of
Germany. The end of the occupation of the Rhineland by the allies is
scheduled for mid 1930.
|
|
September 5
|
Aristide Briand of France proposes a plan for the United States of Europe.
|
|
October 25
|
Black Friday on the stock
exchance of New York starts the world economic crisis.
|
|
1930
|
January 3-20
|
Second Hague Conference. The Young Plan is signed.
|
1931
|
September 18
|
Japan occupies Mukden and other places in Manchuko. War
between Japan and China begins.
|
September 21
|
The bank of England drops the gold standard.
|
|
December 10
|
The League sends a commission to investigate the
Japanese/Chinese conflict.
|
|
1932
|
February 18
|
Japan creates the "independent" state of
Mandchuko (under Japanese protection).
|
June 16 - July 9
|
At the Conference in Lausanne reparations are fixed on a
final sum of 3 billion Goldmarks. This gives a total of paid reparations of
53 Billion Goldmarks.
|
|
September 4
|
Lytton Report on the conflict between China and Japan
accuses Japan of being the aggressor. Japanese special interests are
acknowledged and it proposes to make Manchuko a autonomous part of China
under Japanese control.
|
|
December 11
|
On a conference in Lausanne the major powers acknowledge
Germanys equal rights in (re)armament.
|
|
1933
|
January 30
|
Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of the German Reich.
|
February 2 -
October 14 |
Second internalional conference on disarmament. ends
without results. It tries to limit the army size of the major powers, while
Germany is entitled to 200.000 man. Germany leaves the conference because a
new plan postpones the limitations for four years. In reference to the
Lausanne conference Germany starts a limited rearmament. The conference ends
without any results.
|
|
March 25
|
Japan leaves the League of Nation as a reaction on the
Lytton-report (resolution from Febr. 25). The lack of consequences
demonstrates the weakness of the League against a determined aggressor.
|
|
July 15
|
A pact between France, Germany, Great Britain and Italy is
signed.
|
|
October 14
|
Germany leaves the Leage of Nations
|
|
1934
|
January 24
|
Pact of non-aggression and friendship between Germany and
Poland.
|
Arpil 22
|
French note to Great-Britain about Germanys violation of
the Versailles treaty due to its raised arms etat. In the consequence France
looks for allies in the east, especially the Soviet-Union.
|
|
September 18
|
The Soviet-Union enters the League of Nations.
|
|
1935
|
March 7
|
Reestablishment of the French-Belgian military pact.
|
March 16
|
Germany denounces any arms restrictions of the Versailles
treaty and introduces the enlistment.
|
|
April 17
|
The League of Nations condemns the German violation of the
Versailles treaty. No action is taken.
|
|
May 2
|
French-Soviet pact, effective for five years, for mutual
help in the case of an attack by an European nation.
|
|
May 16
|
Soviet-Czechoslovakian pact, valid only if France supports
both parties.
|
|
June 18
|
German-British Fleet agreement. The German fleet is set to
35% of the British. This supports the revision of the Versailles treaty and
leads to some discomfort between France and Great Britain.
|
|
October 3
|
Italy invades Abessinia.
|
|
September 15
|
The Nuremberg racial laws
("The law to protect German Blood and German Honour") are
promulgated.
|
|
October 11
|
The League of Nations condemns Italys aggression and
imposes an embargo on weapons, credit and raw materials. This remains
ineffective due to a very lenient position of France and Great Britain and
open support by Germany.
|
|
1936
|
March 7
|
German troops enter the Rhineland. The western democracies
take no action, the League protests the violation of the Versailles treaty.
|
Jule 4
|
With the occupation of Abessinia complete, the League ends
its sanctions against Italy.
|
|
Jule 18
|
The Spanish Civil War
starts. With German and Italian support, General Franco manages to put up a
nationalist front. The Republican government (Peoples Front) is strongly
supported and later controlled by the Soviet Union.
|
|
October 25
|
German-Italian treaty between Rome and Berlin (the Axis).
|
|
November 25
|
Anticomintern Pact
between Germany and Japan. Italy enters a year later.
|
|
1937
|
July 7
|
The Japanese Chinese war is renewed.
|
October 5
|
Roosevelt renounces the neutrality policy towards Japan.
|
|
December 11
|
Italy leaves the League of Nations.
|
|
1938
|
March 12
|
German troops enter Austria which is annexed one day
later.
|
September 29
|
Munich Conference. Hitler
assures the world that this is his last territorial demand. British Prime
Minister Chamberlain and French Premier Daladier cede Czech territories to
Germany, Poland and Hungary.
|
|
August 12
|
Armistice declared between Japan and the Soviet Union
after outbreak of border fighting.
|
|
November 9
|
"Reichskristallnacht" in Germany. In an
organized progrom, most Synagogues are ravaged and many jews are killed.
|
|
1939
|
March 14
|
Slovakia and Carpatho-Ukraine declare independency from
Czechoslovakia (strongly encouraged by the Axis-countries). A day later,
German troops occupy the rest of the state.
|
March 15
|
United States begins serious preparations for war.
|
|
April 7
|
As a compensation for the German expansion in
Czechoslavakia, Italy occupies Albania.
|
|
April 18
|
The Soviet Union offers a Soviet-British-French alliance
which would guarantee the integrity of Poland. The consulations are
unproductive.
|
|
May 11
|
Japanese attack on disputed border areas is renewed
between Japanese and Soviets. Japanese are eventually heavily defeated.
|
|
August 23
|
German-Russian
non-agression pact. A secret protocol divides Europe into spheres of
influence.
|
|
August 25
|
A full British-Polish military alliance is formed. Great
Britain guarantees Polands security.
|
|
September 1
|
World War Two begins with
the German attack on Poland.
|
|
September 3
|
France, Great Britain and the Commonwealth countries
declare war upon Germany.
|
|
September 15
|
Soviets and Japanese sign another armistice on Manchurian
border. This frees the Soviets to move troops to the west.
|
|
September 17
|
Soviet troops enter Poland and advance to the
demarcation-line.
|
|
September 25
|
Poland is dismembered. Large parts of it are incorporated
into Germany or the Soviet Union. The remainder on the German side with the
core of the old Polish lands become the "Generalgouvernement". From
the start, the German government systematically tries to eliminate the polish
intelligentsia and educated classes.
|
|
November 8
|
An assassination attempt of Elser on Hitler fails. One of
the consequences is that another attempt planned by the recistance movement
has to be cancelled.
|
|
November 30
|
The Soviet-Finnish winterwar starts. Eventually Finlands
forces are worn down and Finland capitulates.
|
|
1940
|
April 9
|
With operation "Weserübung"
Germany occupies Denmark and Norway.
|
May 10
|
After several months of "Drôle de Guerre"
(Phoney war, Sitzkrieg) the Germans finally attack in the west. After six
weeks of heavy fighting, the Netherlands and Belgium are occupied, France
capitulates after Paris falls and the British withdraw from the continent.
|
|
June 10
|
Mussolini enters the war against France.
|
|
June 22
|
The armistice between Germany and France is signed in the
Compiègne wagon-lit. A French government of the unoccupied territories is
formed in Vichy with General Pétain as head of state.
|
|
October 28
|
Italy attacks Greece.
|
|
December 9
|
Wavell's attack in Northern Africa proceeds from Egypt
into Lybia.
|
|
December 18
|
Hitler signs order 21, Barbarossa.
The planning has to be completed by May 15th.
|
|
1941
|
April 6-28
|
Germany occupies Yugoslavia and Greece.
|
May 20
|
A German air landing manages to capture Crete after twelve
days of severe fighting.
|
|
June 8
|
British and Free French troops invade Syria. Vichy troops
stoutly resist.
|
|
June 22
|
Operation Barbarossa commences. Germany attacks the Soviet
Union.
3 million German soldiers attack the Soviet army of 5.7 million, 2.5 of them in the west. In the coming weeks, Stalin mobilizes some 10 million reservists. On the 29th the Central Commitee declares this the "Great Fatherland War". |
|
October 2
|
The operation "Taifun" to take Moscow commences.
It peters out due to stiffened resistance and especially bad weather.
|
|
December 5
|
The Soviet counter offensive hits the unsuspecting German
army.
|
|
December 7
|
Japanese carrier planes attack the US fleet in Pearl
Harbor.
In a series of campaigns they manage to occupy Malaya, the Phillipines, Singapoore, Java and Borneo. |
|
December 11
|
Hitler declares war upon the United States.
|
|
1942
|
January 1
|
The pact of the "United Nations" is signed in
Washington by 26 nations. They commit themselve to not agree to any seperate
peace with Germany or Japan.
|
January 20
|
During the Wannsee
Conference the procedures of the elimination of the European Jews are
discussed. Shortly after this conference, the elimination camps of Chelmno,
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau began their work.
|
|
March 21
|
Hitler decided to mass-recruit foreign workers into
service for Germany. Most of the finally 7.5 million workers are forced into
service.
|
|
March 28/29
|
First carpet bombing of a German city (Lübeck) by the
British Bomber-Command under General Sir Arthur Harris.
|
|
May 4-8
|
The air-sea battle of the Coral Sea comes out as an
tactical victory but strategical defeat for Japan.
|
|
May 26
|
A German/Italian offensive in Northern Africa manages to
proceed from El-Gazala to Bir Hacheim, later to El-Alamain.
|
|
June 3-7
|
In the Sea-Air battle at Midway the Japanese loose four of
their best aircraft carriers against one of the US. This shifts the naval
superiority from Japan to the US for the remainder of the war.
|
|
August 7
|
US-troops land on Guadalcanal. In a four month battle that
involves sea-, air- and land battles they hold and later occupy the islands.
|
|
October 23
|
A well prepared offensive of the British 8th army (General
Montgomery) forces the German Africa Corps (General Rommel)
to retreat with great losses.
|
|
November 7/8
|
US/British forces land in Marocco and Algieria. After some
fighting the French Vichy Forces join the Free French.
|
|
November 11
|
The remaining part of France is occupied by German and
Italian forces.
|
|
November 19
|
The Soviet offensive northwest of Stalingrad breaks
through the German lines and traps the 6th German army (250.000 men) in the
city. Hitler forbids them to break out.
|
|
1943
|
February 2
|
The last resistance in Stalingrad ends. From 250.000 man
who where trapped in Stalingrad only some 90000 survived (24000 left via air
before). 6000 of these would live through their captivity to return.
|
April 19 -
May 19 |
Uprising in the Warzaw Ghetto. The SS needs a month of
fighting to squash the revolt. 56000 casualties on the Jewish side are
counted.
|
|
May 8
|
Casablance-Conference
between Roosevelt and Churchill. The "unconditional surrender"
becomes the goal of the war.
|
|
May 13
|
The German army in Africa capitulates in Tunis. 130000
German and 120000 Italian soldiers are captured.
|
|
May 23
|
After severe losses (in May, 43 submarines were lost)
Dönitz ends the battle for the North Atlantic.
|
|
July 5
|
Operation "Zitadelle" is the last great German
offensive in the East. Badly planned, it run into severe Russian defenses and
gained no ground. On the 17th of July a Russian counteroffensive on the whole
front quickly gained ground.
|
|
July 10
|
British and US troops land on Sicily.
|
|
September 9
|
British and US troops land at Salerno.
|
|
November 1
|
US Marines land on Bougainville. The island is only
secured in 1945 by Australian troops.
|
|
November 20
|
US Marines attack Tarawa. The island is taken after four
days of heavy fighting. There are no Japanese survivors.
|
|
November 28 -
December 1 |
The Teheran Conference
between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin already dwells on the post-war order
of Europe.
|
|
December 26
|
US troops land on New Britain.
|
|
1944
|
March 7
|
Japanese try to strike into India with an advance to
Kohima and Imphal. They are stopped by British and Indian forces in a series
of battles that rage until the end of May.
|
June 6
|
Allied troops land in Normandy.
|
|
June 15
|
US forces land on Saipan and take it in campaign of some
three weeks. Tinian and Guam are secured by 1st of August. In an attempt to
defend these islands, the Japanese navy rushes to help and gets almost wiped
out in the battle of the Philippine Sea (19th of June).
|
|
June 22
|
The Soviet operation "Bagration" manages to cut
off the German army group center. 28 divisions with some 350000 German
soldiers are destroyed, killed or captured.
|
|
July 20
|
The assassination attempt on Hitler by Oberst Claus
Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg fails. He and several conspirators are
executed. In the end, some 5000 people are killed for their connection to the
plot.
|
|
July 31
|
US breakthrough at Avranches leads to the collapse of the
German defense in France.
|
|
August 25
|
The Free French troops under De Gaulle and US troops
liberate Paris.
|
|
October 20
|
US troops land at Leyte, on the Philippines. In a
prolonged series of Sea-, Air- and landbattles Japan looses its hold on the
Philippines, though large groups hold out until the end of the war. The 25th
of October saw the defeat of the last Japanese naval fleet. Manila was
secured on the 3rd of March 45. This campaign saw the first appearance of
Kamikaze units.
|
|
December 16
|
The Ardenne offensive marks the last try of the Germans to
regain the offensive. It is quickly squashed by Allied airpower.
|
|
1945
|
January 12
|
In a large offensive against the German Eastfront (void of
supplies due to the Ardenne-offensive) the Soviets manage to advance into
Germany.
|
February 4-11
|
At the Jalta-Conference,
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill confer about the new world order. The
establishing of the United Nations is agreed upon.
|
|
February 19
|
US Marines attack Iwo Jima. The island is secured after a
month of heavy fighting.
|
|
April 1
|
US troops land on Okinawa. The battle was over on the 21st
of June, with some 107000 Japanese casualties. The US troops lost almost
13000 killed and had 36000 wounded.
|
|
April 13
|
The Red Army conquers Vienna.
|
|
April 16
|
The Red Army starts its final attack on Berlin.
|
|
April 25
|
US and Soviet troops meet at Torgau.
|
|
April 26
|
The founding conference of the United Nations commences in
San Francisco. It is signed on the 26th of June by representants of 51
nations.
|
|
April 30
|
Hitler commits suicide. Three days later the last
defenders of Berlin capitulate.
|
|
May 8
|
Unconditional surrender of the remaining German forces to
the Allies - VE-Day.
|
|
July 16
|
Trinity. The first atomic
bomb is successfully tested in New Mexico.
|
|
July 17-
August 2 |
The Potsdam Conference
with Truman, Churchill (Attlee since the 29th) and Stalin decides the details
of the post war order and cements the division of Europe into two spheres of
influence.
|
|
August 6
|
The first A-bomb explodes over Hiroshima. 80% of the town
is destroyed, 90000 people die immediately, 400000 are wounded (with
longterm-effects).
|
|
August 8
|
The Soviet Union declares war upon Japan and quickly
advances into Manchuko, Korea and the Kuriles.
|
|
August 9
|
The second A-bomb explodes over Nagasaki. 40000 people die
immediately, 60000 are wounded.
|
|
August 10
|
Japanese Emperor Hirohito sends a capitulation offer to
the Allied Command.
|
|
August 10
|
VJ Day. The war ends with the unconditional surrender of
Japan.
|
|
1946
|
January 10
|
First meeting of the full assembly of the United Nations
in London.
|
1947
|
February 13
|
The UN establishes a commission for conventional
disarmament.
|
March 12
|
The Truman Doctrine
promises to help "free peoples whose liberties are endangered".
|
|
1948
|
April 26
|
The Soviet Union declared the Berlin Blockade. The western Allies build up the Air Lift to supply
Berlin.
|
1949
|
April 4
|
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO is
established.
|
National Timelines
Armed Conflicts
Links (see also our Link-Section)
- "Europe in the Age of Autocracy" by Richard Doody
Bibliography
- Dr. Karl Julius Ploetz, Der Grosse Ploetz, Verlag Ploetz Freiburg, 1986
- Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, F.A. Brockhaus Mannheim, 1987
- Natkiel, Weidenfeld et al., Der grosse Atlas zum II. Weltkrieg, Reprint by Bechtermünz Verlag Augsburg, 1998
------------
RECONSTRUCTION
AND WORLD WAR I: INTERNATIONALISM AND THE IDEA OF THE EXPERT
A Study in City Planning and Rebuilding
by
Lesley Deborah Slavitt
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree Master of Science in Historic Preservation and
the degree Master of Science in Urban Planning
Lesley Deborah Slavitt
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree Master of Science in Historic Preservation and
the degree Master of Science in Urban Planning
Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
1994
1994
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Preface
Chapter I
Preface
Chapter I
Introduction: City Planning, World
War I and the City
Chapter II
Chapter II
The City and Architecture in
Warfare
Chapter III
Chapter III
Patrick Geddes: Planning for Peace
and a New Internationalism
Chapter IV
Chapter IV
George B. Ford: The Planner as
International Consultant
Chapter V
Chapter V
An International Effort at
Reconstruction
Chapter VI
Chapter VI
Reconstruction as International
Pacifism: The Work of the American Friends Service Committee
Chapter VII
Chapter VII
Reconstruction in Belgium
Chapter IX
Chapter IX
Conclusion
Bibliography
Bibliography
PREFACE
This discussion of the implications and consequences
of Europe's post-World War I reconstruction is a purely historical undertaking.
It allows the perspective of time and a critical view to the participants,
techniques and plans which evolved in the United States and Europe after the
close of that conflict. The emerging internationalism and participation in
World War I and the rebuilding of Europe had a profound effect on the
professionals who assisted in its rehabilitation and on subsequent
international relations generally.
Post-war reconstruction commonly refers to the
financial rebuilding of a nation or nations and does not immediately denote the
rebuilding of the physical environment. This is quite natural; although it
ignores one of the major consequences of war, its effect on the people who have
lost their homes, monuments and memories and had to live in places which no
longer had any life. The most profound authorities on the reconstruction died
well before the beginning of World War II. Practitioners such as Patrick
Geddes, for instance, understood the need not just to rebuild but to create a
lasting peace. The lesson he tried to teach was based upon an intuitive
understanding of the way in which society functioned under stringent political
authorities. His advice was not heeded.
The relevance of this discussion is brutally obvious
today. It is not just an appreciation for the city or the consequences and
meaning of rebuilding or the practical requirements for such an effort which
can be gained from this research. One important appreciation I have taken from
this work forces me to reconsider the efforts of Geddes and others who gave of
their time, resources and skill to bring Europe back to life after World War I.
It brings questions to mind such as who creates and benefits from such
conflicts and asks what power the built environment has to either heal society
or monumentalize history.
Present-day focus now turns business, industry and
our skilled professionals to Vietnam and, one day, to Bosnia- Herzegovina.
There are many lessons to be learned from our inability or unwillingness to
create a true and lasting form of peace between and within nations and the
sensitivity and skill which must be coordinated in their rebuilding. I hope
this endeavor offers insight into the motives, meaning and possibilities for
reconstruction to rehabilitate not only the physical environment but the
conditions under which we ascribed meaning to people and places in our very own
communities and abroad.
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Post-World War I reconstruction was a complex and
dynamic undertaking. The "war-to-end-all-wars" galvanized
opportunities on an unprecedented international scale to professionalize the
practice of city planning, apply and transfer the techniques of planning
practice and create a pool of experts in the field. The changes in society
brought about by the shock and horror of the war in Europe transformed the
unfamiliar technology of mass destruction represented by the war into new
theories of decentralization, city building and construction technology. A new
post-war aesthetic which understood the possibilities of adaptive wholesale
destruction and land clearance to remake the way people lived found acceptance
within society. Consequently, World War I formed the psychological and design
initiative for the idea of construction as reconstruction which came to be
understood as "urban renewal." This is evidenced in the post-World
War I era as strongly by the work of designers like Le Corbusier as it is by
the decision of Belgian authorities to not rebuild unsightly residential
quarters demolished by the German Army.
A new internationalism developed after the war which
generated international communication and co-responsibility on the part of
individuals and world nations on a one-to-one footing extending beyond the
bonds of imperialism. International organizations, private industry and
political authorities recognized the impact of such a devastating war on their
own interests, whether those interests were humanitarian, financial or
authoritarian. The role of the international organization and a growing pool of
experts also helped to legitimize theories of decentralization which were as
relevant for the practice of city planning in the post-World War I era as they
were for the political ideology of the League of Nations. Although such a
league, as designed by Woodrow Wilson, could not be nonpartisan, and avoid the
influence of those politicians who made the war inevitable or not concern
itself with the imperial expansion and colonialism of nations, it was an
attempt to put into practice many of the same notions about decentralization
which were more successfully translated into the birth of the regional planning
movement in the United States and Europe after the war.
The development of numerous experts, organizations
and ideas resulted from the impact of the war on professionals and the general
population alike. The complex effort to reconstruct Northern France and
Belgium, where most of the fighting occurred, was a dynamic undertaking which
can best be understood through the exploration of the different techniques,
causes and concerns of those who participated in the massive effort. Economic
restructuring and international finance and civilian relief initiatives, among
other components of the reconstruction, are largely ignored in this paper.
Although relevant to the rebuilding and rejuvenating of Europe and its
population, they are deserving of lengthy inquiry in their own right and beyond
the scope of this investigation. This effort seeks to inform, enlighten and
explore the techniques, decisions and meaning behind the physical
reconstruction of the built environment after the unprecedented destruction of
the First World War and analyze their profound relationship and effect on later
events of the twentieth century.
CHAPTER II
City Planning and World War I
The emergence and growth of city planning in the
first two decades of the twentieth century helped prepare practitioners,
governments and theoreticians for the necessities of rebuilding Europe after
the devastation of World War I. The acknowledgment of city planning as a
profession which resulted as a course of the war provided the authority for such
practitioners to replan and regulate for urban order in the United States and
abroad at the close of the conflict. This role was buttressed by an emerging
internationalism on the eve of the war which enabled city planners to look to
other countries for models of good planning and to transfer developing
techniques and models across the ocean. Germany was the model for city planning
in the pre-World War I era; however, when all things German became
"sinister," new advances in city planning were demanded from Allied
countries.
World War I was a catalyst for international exchange
and cooperation and spearheaded a search for a newly regulated urban order. The
war devastated European society and hastened new ideas of city building which
would come to dominate urban planning and policies for urban renewal and
reconstruction later in the twentieth century. These ideas, deeply rooted in
the psychological impact of the war, helped to further separate city planning
from architecture even if they did not form the basis for any reconstruction
efforts in the devastated regions of Northern France and Belgium after the
close of the war in 1918.
In a search for professional legitimacy for the
planning profession in the United States and Great Britain in the first years
of the twentieth century, practitioners looked to Germany as a model of
professional practice and began to transfer German innovations to their own
countries. Until the arms race began in 1907, Britain had a natural
relationship with Germany; Kaiser Wilhelm was a cousin of Queen Victoria. The
progressive reformers and advocates of scientific management in the United
States found Germany to be a unifying influence. The hated disorganization,
urban clutter and congestion symbolic of rapid industrialization and the turn
of the century city had been avoided in German cities, and Americans found
German legal approaches particularly compelling. German advances in city
planning of zoning, redevelopment regulations and metropolitan utility
companies discouraged land speculation, protected the historic heritage of
cities and, most importantly, proved that rapid urban growth did not have to
lead to disorganization and congestion. For Great Britain and the United States
the German example showed that the practice of city planning could reorganize
cities into coherent, orderly, modern industrial cities with happy workers and
high productivity.<(1) William R.F. Phillips, "American and British
City Planning and the 'German Example' at the Turn of the Century." >
A series of interlocking circumstances helped the
practice of city planning evolve in Great Britain and the United States at the
turn of the twentieth century.<(2) Gordon Cherry, "The
Turn-of-the-Century Origins of Town Planning: A New Look at the Evidence from
Great Britain."> Until the close of World War I in both Great Britain
and the United States the development and application of city planning was
impacted by the struggle between the actions of private parties and advocates
of public/governmental control and authority. Planning was, at its essence, a
political and social response to the conditions of late nineteenth and early
twentieth century society. Rapid industrialization, unregulated building, land
speculation and the deplorable living conditions of the urban poor and working
man plagued cities in both Great Britain and the United States. However, at the
turn of the century labor viewed the impact of the burgeoning city planning
movement in quite a different fashion, namely as another means by which the
working class could be regulated; notwithstanding, housing became the
cornerstone of British planning policy after World War I.
The evolution of city planning in Great Britain at
the turn of the century brought the reform movement and a number of key
academics and entrepreneurs into concert with increasingly powerful local
governments. This reform movement was rooted in a long- standing concern for
public health and the search for quality housing, as embodied by the Garden
City Movement, established and organized without government assistance.
Industrialization brought a new scale of urban growth which gave rise to
congestion, overcrowded living conditions and a lack of suitable housing. Key
actors saw these changes in the city as an opportunity. Academics such as
Patrick Geddes, Thomas Adams and Raymond Unwin began a discourse on town
planning practice and offered the notion that planning needed its own
discipline and pedagogy. Proponents of the Garden City Movement, such as
Ebenezer Howard, found an alternative to urban problems by rejecting the city
in favor of an alternative workers' settlement which offered proper housing,
sunlight and a connection to nature. The institutional transformations of early
twentieth century Great Britain placed more power and responsibility in the
hands of local government. Local councils were required to deal with the
problems of housing, public health and local service needs.<(3) Ibid.>
Most notably, these efforts culminated in the Housing and Town Planning Act of
1909. This interplay of reform efforts, academic interest in the practice of
town planning and government reorganization were the contributions of the
British to the practice of city planning until the government reforms of the
post-World War I era.
Conditions in urban America at the turn of the
twentieth century paralleled those of Great Britain. A small number of reform
advocates called for the building of garden cities in the United States as a
solution to the problem of housing the workingman and the evils of the industrialized
city. The first garden city was built in Britain in 1904 and by 1907 a Garden
Cities Association of America had been established and was calling for the
construction of garden cities at several sites in America. Forest Hills Gardens
in New York City, the first garden city in the United States, was not built
until 1909. Other than the legislative initiatives being undertaken in Germany,
at this time the garden cities concept was one of the few fully conceived city
planning ideas made available to any audience during the early twentieth
century.
Addressing the condition of cities at the turn of the
century helped to bring about the practice of city planning in the United
States as it had in Britain. Two divergent but equally important movements characterized
town planning practice in the United States before the war: the City Beautiful
and the City Efficient. These movements found their nexus at the First National
Conference on City Planning held in Washington, D.C. in 1909. On the eve of
unveiling the landmark City Beautiful Chicago Plan, a new emphasis was directed
towards the social and economic health of the city and away from the urban
design reform advocated by the City Beautiful Movement and its
supporters.<(4) Blaine A. Brownell, "Urban Planning, the Planning
Profession, and the Motor Vehicle in Early Twentieth-Century America,"
Shaping an Urban World, ed. Gordon E. Cherry, p. 61.> The Conference was
mainly attended by the progressive reformers who were to develop the practice
of city planning in the United States and who were concerned about the science
of city management. The decline of the City Beautiful Movement began at this
time and coincides with the birth of city planning in the United States.<(5)
Mario Manieri-Elia, "From City Beautiful to City Planning," The
American City: From the Civil War to the New Deal, ed. Georgio Ciucci, p.
105.> This separation of city planning from the profession of architecture,
which begins to take place just before the outbreak of war in Europe, is a key
element in the professionalization of planning and greatly impacts rebuilding
efforts and images of the city in the post-World War I era.
The City Beautiful Movement, championed most notably
by Daniel Burnham, was a purely architectural effort to remake the physical
form of the city and plan for its future. It was characteristically undertaken
by private business interests who believed the physical form of the city
directly impacted upon real estate values, tourism and corporate prominence.
American cities found themselves in competition with the older, grander
capitols of Europe and through Burnham found a dynamic program of comprehensive
redevelopment and rebuilding that could transform the American city.
The progressive reformers and advocates of the City Efficient
vehemently opposed the City Beautiful. They argued it held a blatant disregard
for the ill health, congested conditions and working population of the city;
further, it ignored completely the causes of urban decline and offered no
practical solutions to insure appropriate and safeguarded future urban growth.
On the other hand, the need for comprehensive plans, zoning regulations and
local planning commissions to manage the growth of the city, based largely on
German models, was ardently advocated by reformers.
Benjamin Marsh, Executive Secretary of the Committee
on Congestion of Population in New York, voiced many of the prevailing
attitudes of the reformers in 1909 when he captioned his discourse on city
planning as "... Democracy's Challenge to the American City."<(6)
Benjamin Clarke Marsh, An Introduction to City Planning. Democracy's Challenge
to the American City.> Marsh concluded there was a need for government
intervention to secure good living conditions, the taxpayer held the responsibility
for paying for the ills of uncontrolled congestion, establishment of the
appropriate administrative bodies was needed to carry out required planning
activities and a city plan was needed which would secure healthful conditions
for the entire city.<(7) Ibid, p. 152.> Reformers immediately embarked
upon a campaign to educate the public about city planning through a series of
exhibitions and lectures and proposed to show how it was "good
business" to plan for a city's future development and not squander its resources.
The condition of German cities was also publicized by the reformers who hoped
to gain a certain professional legitimacy for the tools and practice of city
planning with such models.
George B. Ford, one of the most ardent and articulate
of the reformers and advocates of the science of city planning, campaigned for
height restrictions, zone systems (districting) and municipal planning
commissions to manage American cities. He believed American cities were
"impractical and unbusinesslike."<(8) , "Unpractical City
Planning," The New York Time, April 11, 1911, 7:1.> Uncontrolled
industrial growth and tall buildings, Ford claimed, negatively impacted on
adjacent property owners and would cause unfettered harm to commercial
properties in addition to a more congested urban environment in which these
buildings would usurp all available light, air and ventilation. Skyscrapers
were further described as poor investments that seldom failed to pay more than
a 2.5% or 3% return on investment and created a more intensive transportation
glut and would cause greater congestion because one would have more people at
any one location at a given time who would need to be transported to and from
work.<(9) , "Calls Skyscrapers Poor Investments," The New York
Time, Aug. 6, 1915, 11:5.> The city planning commission, as advocated by
reformers like Ford, would manage these various controls and regulations and
prepare the city for its future growth and development. Although a small number
of planning commissions were established before the war, the establishment of
rudimentary zoning ordinances in a few cities, such as Los Angeles, Minneapolis
and, most notably, New York, were the most significant achievements of the
emerging practice of city planning in the United States before World War I.
As the science of town planning gained professional
stature in Great Britain and the United States, planning practice began to
focus on internal issues and philosophies. The war in Europe had begun some
three years before the United States entered the conflict and, by that time,
Germany's aggressive tendencies had already created a distinct disfavor of all
things German in the international public eye. Notwithstanding, the search for
legitimacy by a nascent planning practice forced practitioners to look abroad
and turn away from their own traditions of city building. On the eve of war in
Europe an international congress of cities and town planning was devised, and
it formed the basis for the burgeoning internationalism which would put forth the
techniques, practitioners and ideologies of post-war reconstruction.
The internationalization of city planning was first
displayed in October, 1910 at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)
Town Planning Conference in London. As opposed to the conference held one year
prior in Washington, D.C., the progressive reformers from America did not
attend. Burnham and the City Beautiful Movement made their last big pitch,
advocating the "formal-classical approach." Burnham purposely spoke
only of his work as a planner and made no mention of his architectural career;
but his efforts to display the innovative private sponsorship and coordination
necessary to carry out his plans did not greatly impress his audience. The
"sociological approach" of Howard's Garden City Movement and of
Patrick Geddes found greater appeal and offered new innovations and legitimacy
different from the traditional German model.<(10) Manieri-Elia, p. 107.>
The garden city idea attracted the reformers; it offered a decentralist theory,
a good business investment and was entirely programmed and planned. As such, it
could integrate the housing problem with planning practice.<(11) Francesco
Dal Co, "Transforming the City, 1893-1920," The American City: From
the Civil War to the New Deal, ed. Georgio Ciucci, pp. 210-11.>
Geddes made the most significant and revolutionary
contribution to the RIBA Conference with his 'Civic Survey of Edinburgh.' It
was a comprehensive survey of the geology, history, housing, architecture and
social and economic conditions of Edinburgh and its region.<(12) Philip
Boardman, The Worlds of Patrick Geddes. Biologist, Town Planner, Re-Educator,
Peace-Warrior, pp. 215-16.> Geddes campaigned for an interdisciplinary
approach to sociology and the city and fathered the civic survey technique and
regionalism for the profession as a whole. Geddes's exhibition was quite
significant and represented "the most specialized planning tool in general
use."<(13) Brownell, p. 68.> The technique of the civic survey was
to become much more specialized in the aftermath of World War I and the massive
efforts at reconstruction which followed.
The final and least noteworthy or innovative school
of thought represented at the RIBA conference was the traditional technocracy
of German functional zoning and city management which was rapidly losing its
significance as a legitimizing tool in the international arena with the advent
of new techniques and approaches, most of which were represented by the
"sociological approach."<(14) Spiro Kostof, The City Assembled;
The Elements of Urban Form Through History, p. 231.>
The birth of the international conference was
distinct from the international exhibition which had been made famous by the
various innovative architectural monuments constructed for such fairs since the
1850's and held both in Europe and the United States. The international
exhibition was an effort to materialize the ideal city and did not represent
any one place or technique for city planning or city management. It was a
vision of the perfect city and was known to be ephemeral and impermanent.
The Ghent International Exhibition held in Belgium in
1913 was the first international congress of city planning. The RIBA Conference
was more revolutionary for the techniques and discourse between different town
planning practice represented. Ghent's "Cities and Town Planning
Exhibition" and the "International Congress of Cities" was,
according to Patrick Abercrombie, "the first professedly international
congress of town planners" ever held.<(15) Patrick Abercrombie,
"The First International Congress of Town Planning and Organization of
City Life," The Town Planning Review, Vol. 4, Nu. 3 (Oct., 1913), p.
205.> It also exposed Geddes's technique of survey to a much wider audience,
discussed the organization of city life, exhibited the profession of city
planning internationally and called for the formation of a Permanent
International Committee and Bureau for Municipal Affairs. The conference served
the further and, as it turned out, essential purpose of creating an
international community of planning practitioners and the exchange of
principles for town planning practice. These relationships and exchange of
ideas formed the basis for the transfer of ideas, improvement of techniques and
coordination involved in the reconstruction of the devastated regions of
Northern France and Belgium after the war.
World War I reorganized the prevailing notions of
city life in the United States and Europe. The new economy of war and the
necessity of housing industrial workers in the United States and rehousing and
reconstituting devastated cities and populations in Northern Europe intensified
exchanges between planning practitioners of the philosophies and tools of city
planning. It also created a pool of experts in these emerging techniques who
further spread the ideas of regionalism, survey and state-wide planning
legislation which emerged during the war. Their application developed into the
post-war reconstruction which became the cornerstone for the growing practice
of city planning, which was completely legitimized as a profession in the
aftermath of the war.
The participation of the United States in World War I
also resulted in the progressive reformers succeeding in their campaign to
achieve government-wide participation and financing in city planning.
Furthermore, the "war economy," which was an emergency measure set up
by the government to increase industrial production and buying power,
instituted a search for better building practices, planning standards and
workers' housing. Two distinct bodies were organized by the federal government
to create the unprecedented number of new housing units which had to be
constructed to house all the new industrial workers created by increased war
production. The United States Housing Corporation (USHC) of the Department of
Labor and the Emergency Fleet Corporation (EFC) of the Division of
Transportation and Housing were organized in the hopes of creating an efficient
industrial complex. More than 120 architects and planners were hired by the
government; among them Henry Wright, Clarence Stein and Frederick Law Olmsted,
Jr. They set about building a number of garden cities and model villages. The
USHC, which constructed and operated these industrial villages, spent $52 million
and constructed some 5,998 units for families and 7,181 units for single people
working in the munitions industry. The EFC gave construction capital to private
companies with the stipulation that they could not charge more than a certain
interest rate on loans to the occupants who purchased the units; they gave $70
million in loans and built 9,185 units for families and 7,564 units for single
people working in the munitions industry. For example, Yorkshore Village in
Camden, New Jersey was designed by Electus D. Litchfield for the EFC; the
entire land area of the site is 225 acres, of which 90 acres was subdivided
into 2,400 lots with 27 different dwelling types. The average house cost $2,700
and purchasers paid no more than a 5% rate of interest. (See Figure 1.)<(16)
Francesco Dal Co, "From the First World War to the New Deal: The Regional
Planning Association of America," The American City: From the Civil War to
the New Deal, ed. Georgio Ciucci, pp. 221-222.>
The coordination, technical progress and government
intervention obtained during World War I was not readily abandoned by the
reform advocates, who had successfully won recognition for their profession. As
one of the results of World War I on town planning practice internationally,
the spread of the Garden City Movement helped form the Regional Plan
Association of America (RPAA), which was established in 1923 by many of the
architects and planners who had worked for USHC and EFC during the war. The
RPAA, undeniably influenced by the ideologies and writings of Geddes during the
early years of the war in Europe, intended to develop a series of garden
cities, prepare comprehensive plans on a regional scale, work with the regional
activities of other related professionals and undertake a series of larger
regional survey projects.<(17) Ibid, p. 231.> The RPAA represented the
continuing reform-minded activities of planning professionals whose ideology
was firmly rooted in the economic and social reform of the progressive era and
who advocated the further decentralization of the city in the post-World War I
era.
One of the major efforts of pre-war city planners in
the new post-war American city concerned a return to the fight against the
skyscraper and for more restrictive zoning. The American city had only
intensified those ills identified by planning professionals, such as Ford, who
had picked up the fight for comprehensive planning and against the rampant
congestion caused by the tall building. This problem had only intensified due
to construction technologies which had developed during the war. City planning
had undeniably been legitimized with the war and, to a large degree, this was
because it brought planning into the public realm and further away from the
direct control of private enterprise. Greater acceptance and
internationalization of planning techniques was also a direct result of the
war; the English garden city model became an easily available tool offered by
the British to solve problems of industrial production during the war and in
the post-war reconstruction in Europe. The civic survey continued to evolve and
by the end of the war it had matured into a fully-comprehensive planning tool
as had the Geddesian concept of regionalism.
British planners could for the most part only offer
the garden city model and the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 as
contributions to international planning and reconstruction efforts throughout
the war. Although British planners were aware of the different patterns of
urban and rural development in Great Britain and Belgium, through the Garden
Cities and Town Planning Association, a conference was arranged in February,
1915 to fully inform Belgian town planners, many of whom spent the war in
London, about the garden city idea in the event that they became interested in
it as a model for reconstruction. A small number of garden cities were
eventually built in Belgium as a reconstruction tool, Ypres for instance. This
appears to be mostly an effort to quickly build aesthetically pleasing workers
housing and insure that the older, unsightly and unhealthy urban working
quarters of the pre-war city were not rebuilt.<(18) G. Topham Forrest,
"The Rebuilding of Ypres," The Journal of the Royal Institute of
British Architects, Vol. 31, Nu. 3 (8 Dec., 1923), pp. 68-70.> Such efforts
of British planners did help to spread the garden city model internationally
and increase the legitimacy of the profession. Also, a series of model cities
were planned as part of the British reconstruction in conjunction with a rural
regional development program of light railways to connect rural towns with the
main railways. Materials used by the British in France during the war were to
be made available with demobilization after the war ended in order to
significantly reduce the costs of construction.<(19) , "British
Reconstruction," The New York Times, Jan. 9, 1919, 3:6.>
The evolution of the civic survey in Great Britain
came about primarily as a war measure to keep architects employed. The
Architects' War Committee first proposed the idea in 1914 and argued to the
government that these surveys "will form an important supplement to the
existing municipal statistics and will prove of the greatest value in
influencing future development."<(20) , "Civic Surveys in War
Time," The Town Planning Review, Vol. 5, Nu. 3 (Oct., 1914), p. 247.>
The techniques and schedule of information proposed for collection and analysis
evolved over the next year or so as architects and planners in Britain
attempted to keep themselves employed and develop an appropriate and useful war
measure for the devastated regions of Northern France and Belgium. It was
argued that such surveys would be invaluable sources of information which would
enable planners to make the most appropriate and intelligent decisions
concerning the future development of a locale. The civic survey was most
directly advocated by the British at this time and became an invaluable
technique for reconstruction and regional planning after the war's end.
The use of surveys in Britain as a local planning initiative,
as advocated by the Architects' War Committee, fit directly with the Housing
and Town Planning Act of 1909 which had put planning in the hands of local
government. Although not a very successful piece of legislation in its own
right, as it was too bureaucratic, the 1909 Town Planning Act was
revolutionary. It made housing the responsibility of local authorities without
the benefit of a subsidy. It was, however, an ill-used legislation, as only 13
plans were submitted. Its most significant advancement was in emphasizing the
responsibility of the state to improve the social and economic conditions of
Great Britain and the "relevance of town planning" to such an
effort.<(21) John Minett, "The Housing, Town Planning Etc. Act, 1909,"
The Planner, Vol. 60, Nu. 5 (May, 1974) p. 676.> Housing was the most
important issue in post-war Britain; it was not only a political campaign tool-
'Homes for Heroes'- but, it was the key cause for reformers who felt it was
their duty to provide safe and healthy living conditions for a morally
traumatized post-war population. The 1919 Housing and Town Planning Act
significantly reduced the cumbersome administrative obligations of the earlier
legislation, made town planning a duty of local governments with a population
of 20,000 or greater and "provided a new encouragement for the development
of town planning during the twenties."<(22) Gordon Cherry, "The
Housing, Town Planning Etc. Act, 1919," The Planner, Vol. 60, Nu. 5 (May,
1974), p. 681.>
These efforts at comprehensive planning and greater
government responsibility led to plans for the preparation of a guide for the
future development of London by the London Society. The Society formed a number
of committees, most notably the Unhealthy Areas Committee governed by Neville
Chamberlin and the Greater London Regional Planning Committee under the
direction of Raymond Unwin. However, these efforts were unable to obtain the
funding and institutional support needed to develop such a plan and eventually
dissolved.<(23) Patrick Abercrombie, Greater London Plan 1944, pp. 1-2.>
Such effort, however, did not go unnoticed, and laid the important groundwork
for the Greater London Plan of 1944, prepared by Patrick Abercrombie, which was
to be the guide for post-World War II reconstruction in Great Britain.
City planning evolved as a course of the war and
prepared practitioners, governments and the population for the consequences of
the war's devastation. A legitimate body of professionalized town planners were
able to translate the dynamic impact of the war into a philosophy of city
management, urban regulation, hygienic order, decentralized living and a new
regionalism for cities worldwide. A new professional with specific knowledge,
tools and abilities emerged distinctly from the profession of architecture;
and, these skills and ability, honed by the very practice of war, created an
international network of planning practitioners and techniques of the
profession which could legitimately influence, manage and evolve cities from
the close of World War I onward.
CHAPTER III
The City and Architecture in Warfare
World War I was the first "total" war and
the first technical war in Europe.<(24) Paul Virilio and Sylvere Lotinger,
Pure War, pp. 8-9.> It was a war virtually without visible enemies; the
origin of the tank, long range artillery and the evolution of the bomber all
designed a war in which a soldier rarely, if ever, came into direct contact
with his enemy. Mass destruction of industry, agricultural lands and cities and
towns where the fighting took place was inevitable with such a horrific and
devastating war. Britain lost some 900,000 men, and French war deaths numbered
nearly 1.4 million. It is not surprising that "a certain style of life, a
social order, a sense of stability and confidence seems to have vanished
forever" in the aftermath of the war.<(25) Norma Evenson, Paris: A
Century of Change, 1878-1978, p. 159.> It created, for the first time, a gap
between the young and the old, and cities were filled with young women and old
men.<(26) Robert Hughes, The Shock of the New: Art and the Century of
Change, p. 59.>
The advent of strategic bombing raised a number of
moral and legal issues regarding such attacks against civilian populations.
Most large cities, according to The Hague rules for land warfare, contained too
many arsenals to be considered an "open city." In 1914 the World
Peace Foundation did finally establish the legality of bombing raids
"however much," the organization stipulated, "it might offend
the world's sense of humanity."<(27) Lee Kennett, The First Air War
1914-1918, p. 55.> Paris, more often then not attacked for propaganda value,
sustained the first strategic air attack of the war in August, 1914 in which
the first of 500 Parisians who died as a result of German bombing raids
perished. This raid by one German Taube also damaged Notre Dame de Paris.
German cities were well beyond range of Allied air
attacks, and not a single bomb fell on Berlin during the war. The Germans,
however, sustained a program of bombing the capitals of its enemies because it
made for good morale at home and they enjoyed the psychological impact of the
raids upon civilian populations.<(28) Kennett, p. 55.> Not all people
accepted the legitimacy of such bombing raids, not to mention the lack of
humanity. It began to damage the reputation of Germany with still neutral
nations like the United States. The Germans succeeded in terrorizing civilian
populations and creating animosity and frustration towards their own leaders
who were unable to protect them.<(29) Lee Kennett, A History of Strategic
Bombing, pp. 21-23.> In 1918, the last year of the war, the Germans made a
sustained effort to destroy Paris which was only sixty miles from the front.
Continuous day and night shelling by an embankment of guns surrounding the city
known as the "Paris Guns" bombarded the city, as well as a newly
initiated bombing campaign. On Good Friday, 1918 one of the most horrific of
the forty- four air raids which plagued the city from March to August and claimed
half of all fatalities Paris sustained during the war began.<(30) Kennett,
p. 36.> One shell hit the fully occupied Church of Saint-Gervais on that
day, killed one hundred worshipers and destroyed the vault of the church.
German plans to develop a new incendiary bomb, the Elektron, to completely
destroy Paris did not materialize before the end of the war nor did German
plans to bomb New York City; by the end of the summer of 1918 the war had
turned in favor of the Allies and was coming to a close.<(31) Kennett, pp.
213-14.>
In addition to the psychological impact of the German
campaign against Paris, the city began to take on a "new geography"
as a result of the war. Paris became identified with the northern
"uncertain boundaries of a war-torn country" for southern Frenchmen--
a condition only heightened by the fact that access to the city was completely
cut off from most routes and could only be entered from the south.<(32) Jean
Meral, Paris in American Literature, pp. 106-7.>
Paris itself was transformed in the aftermath of the
war. Not only were a number of main streets renamed and plazas created to
commemorate the war but, in a design competition held by the French government
in 1920 for the future development of Paris and its region, the question of
what should be done with the fortifications handed over to the city by the
state was raised.<(33) Adrian Berrington, "The Paris Competition,"
The Town Planning Review, Vol. 8, Nu. 3-4 (Dec., 1920), p. 163.> (Paris was
still a walled city at the end of the war.) To address the massive housing
problems in providing for soldiers' families after the war France developed a
subsidized housing program in addition to its new town planning legislation.
Squatters' shacks had previously been concentrated around the edge of the city,
and it was decided to construct a development of new housing and services
around the city. The fortifications were taken down, as they had lost any
military value and were not able to protect the city and its civilian
population from mechanized warfare.<(34) Gregory John Ashworth, War and the
City, p. 159.> A band of subsidized housing known as the Red Belt, because
of the red clay earth in the immediate vicinity from which it was made,
replaced it. (See Figures 1, 2 & 3.)
The notion that France continually suffers for its
capital, expressed by Patrick Geddes for one, helps the development of much of
the ideology of decentralization popular in post-war French town planning
initiatives and impacts strongly on post-war planning worldwide. It further assisted
in developing the post-war regionalism which became as popular in French
planning in the 1920's and 1930's as it did in British and American planning in
the post-war era.
Mechanization had not always had such a negative
perception in European cities. Mechanization was seen as a positive vehicle for
urban modernization and an advanced, civilized society. It was in the pre-war
years, according to art historian Robert Hughes,
"unqualifyingly good, strong, stupid, and
obedient... a giant slave. The machine meant the conquest of process... the
'romance' of technology... because more and more people were living in a
machine-formed environment: the city."<(35) Hughes, p. 11.>
The city was where machine and people interacted. The
Eiffel Tower, built in 1889, was a living celebration of the machine. It
towered over the city of Paris and celebrated an emerging technology for all to
see and brought a new understanding of the city and its surrounding region from
the magnificent views it afforded. At the turn of the twentieth century the
city began to undergo drastic changes with industrialization and the
introduction of the automobile and tram.<(36) Reyner Banham, Theory and
Design in the First Machine Age, p. 100.> This technology, however, was not
only embraced but celebrated. For instance, Eugene Henard, Architect of the
City of Paris from 1900-1914, proposed that the Champ de Mars be converted into
the first in-city landing strip in the world.<(37) Peter Wolf, "The
First Modern Urbanist," Architectural Forum, Vol. 127, Nu. 3 (Oct., 1967),
p. 52.>
The Futurists in pre-war Italy felt, according to the
manifesto text The Messagio, that the problems of modern living had
"nothing to do with defining formalistic
differences between the new buildings and the old ones," but
"gleaning every benefit of science and technology, settling nobly every
demand of our habits and our spirits, rejecting all that is heavy, grotesque
and unsympathetic to us (tradition, style, aesthetics, proportion),
establishing new form, new lines, new reason for existence. Such an
architecture cannot be subject to any law of historical continuity. It must be
as new as our state of mind, and the contingencies of our moment in
history."<(38) Banham, p. 128.>
The expression of such an ideology was astounding in
1914, on the eve of World War I, "because it puts together,"
according to architectural historian Reyner Banham, "the predisposing
causes and newly emergent ideas of the pre-War epoch in a manner which did not
become general until the War was over, and-more important-it takes up attitudes
to those predisposing causes according to those new ideas."<(39) Ibid.,
p. 130.> The war put an end to the debate between traditionalists and the
emerging modernists in the pre-World War I era. By the end of the war, not only
had mass production, construction technology and the essential building
materials of structural steel, glass and concrete sufficiently evolved, but the
war had put an end to pre-war values and faith in society and political elites
that had questioned Futurist notions. It demanded a complete reorganization of
beliefs and a turning away from the past.<(40) Barbara Miller Lane,
Architecture and Politics in Germany, 1918-1945, p. 3.>
De Stijl, Dada and Surrealism were the first artistic
movements which evolved as a direct result of the war.
"After 1914, machinery was turned on its
inventors and their children. After forty years of continuous peace in Europe,
the worst war in history canceled the faith in good technology, the benevolent
machine. The myth of the Future went into shock, and European art moved into
its years of irony, disgust, and protest. World War I changed the life of words
and images in art, radically and forever. It brought our culture into the age
of mass-produced, industrialized death. This, at first, was
indescribable."<(41) Hughes, pp. 56-57.>
This new art brought to fruition many of the trends
which have influenced art and architecture throughout the twentieth century--
one which would be fully conscious of its role in art and the ways it could
reflect and shape society, while questioning its own validity. The post-war art
was a specific reaction to war and the involvement of artists who glorified
World War I as European culture, the very culture which had caused the war. It
relinquished the traditional controls of society and created an
"anti-art" which demanded a new, expressive form that broke from all
traditional symbols and directly explored a subconscious world aroused by the
horror of the war.
In the post-war aftermath planners and architects who
did not choose to participate in the massive efforts to rebuild and recapture
what had been lost as a result of the war turned to reinvent the world and
build a rational new age with only token monuments from the past remaining, at
best. War is supposed to be waged for reason and out of logic, yet the violence
and destruction of war has none. The relationships and precedents destroyed by
the war allowed for the gesture of erasing the old city and constructing a new
one in its place. The emergence of twentieth century urbanism and its efforts
to create new machines for living is inseparable from the impact of the war.
Work by Walter Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe,
Bruno Taut and Le Corbusier, among others, created new forms that responded to
their new world. Borrowing inspiration from the avant-garde, the new aesthetic
for hygienic living, pre- war industrial building types and modern materials,
these architects developed a monumental ideology which could reorder society.
This notion of construction from reconstruction found its expression through
architecture in the post-war years and only later, towards mid-century, did it
profoundly reorder notions of city building throughout the world. The
International Style, or the Machine Aesthetic, as it came to be known, had a
characteristic lack of ornament and an emphasis on functionalism and completely
rejected the traditions and heaviness of previous architectural forms. The
reliance on modern materials, glass for instance, spoke to this aesthetic and
created an architecture of peace which was transparent, ephemeral and
pure.<(42) Ibid., pp. 177-78.>
This new architecture of the International Style
designed whole new cities and remade older ones with a complete disregard for the
past. Visions by, most notably, Le Corbusier called for new modular machines
for living in modernist towers which would erase the urban problems of
congestion and increasing motorized traffic and old, uncomfortable, dingy and
dense buildings which had not protected or advanced daily living before the
war.<(43) Ibid., p. 187.> Such city building ideology, although not
directly significant to the rebuilding effort of post-World War I Europe, found
its way to America from the political changes in Europe on the eve of the
Second World War and formed the design intentions of "urban renewal"
in the U.S. and Europe alike in the post World War II era.
The techniques of modernism impacted on this new
architecture and the practice of town planning after the First World War. The
aerial photo survey and military reconnaissance and mapping techniques were all
coopted by such practitioners after the war. The advent of a purely modernist
tradition after World War I also helped to solidify the legitimacy of town
planning professionals by distancing architecture from growing regulations and
city management, regionalism and decentralization, all of which gained distinct
importance after the war.
CHAPTER IV
Patrick Geddes: Planning for Peace and a New
Internationalism
Patrick Geddes (1854-1931) wrote more profoundly than
any other planning practitioner on the consequences and outcomes of World War
I. A Scottish town planner by practice and a sociologist and botanist by
training, Geddes advocated a post-war order which would plan and rebuild a
greater culture than the one destroyed by the war. He advocated a more careful
and decentralized internationalism which would put an end to the rampant
imperialism which had caused World War I. It was, Geddes felt, important to stop
"sacrificing life to things" and to begin to reemphasize the
importance of human beings in post-war culture. Geddes's greatest aim was to
find a way to create a new form of peace which would not be "latent
war" waiting for yet another conflict to begin.
Geddes campaigned for new decentralized planning and
regionalism throughout his career. He felt that through a regional perspective
a greater welfare could be created for all men, as opposed to the more civic
minded approach to "constructive betterment" which took mostly
independent measures as, for instance, towards social services or the care of
historic monuments.<(44) Philip Boardman, Patrick Geddes: Maker of the
Future, pp. X-XII.> Geddes based much of this thinking on his earlier
efforts to promote the idea of the civic survey; he felt this general
assessment of a city and its relationship to the surrounding region would
identify the inherent resources of a place, analyze its complex conditions and
relationships and plan for a more noble future.
All of this thinking came together in London in the
summer of 1915 at a meeting devoted to a discussion of the war and the problems
which were anticipated to arise in the post-war era, known as the "Summer
Meeting." These lectures initiated by Geddes and his colleague, historian
and economist, Gilbert Slater, formed the basis for a series of publications on
war and peace broadly titled, "The Making of the Future."<(45)
Ibid., pp. 362-63.> These publications were organized and edited mostly by
Geddes's friend, banker, Victor Branford, after Geddes left for India shortly
after the conference.
Curiously, although it seems to have organized and
clarified his interest and practice in town planning more than any other event,
Geddes did not participate in any reconstruction efforts either during the war
or after its conclusion. He merely hoped, it seems, to influence the
practitioners and political elites who would create and have to manage the
peace from a conflict they had made inevitable; Geddes still hoped they would
be able to install a real, lasting form of peace. He did not return to Europe
for any lengthy period of time until 1924, only seven years before his death.
He spent most of his time abroad doing comprehensive city plans and civic
surveys in Palestine and India and established the Institute of Civics at the
University of Bombay. It can only be assumed, given Geddes's great passion for
the problems of war and peace, that he felt no matter how noble and important
his ideas were that they would never come to change the world and the minds of
men who seemed to have learned nothing from the war's terrorizing destruction
of human life and dignity.
Although eight separate volumes in all, the three
most important publications in which Geddes discussed the problems of war and
the creation of a true peace were: Ideas at War, The Coming Polity and Our
Social Inheritance.<(46) Ibid.> Geddes believed there were five basic
issues which needed to be addressed in any discussion of war and peace: one,
the end to the crushing militarism of Prussia impacting on all peoples,
including the German people; two, the destruction of the
"war-capital" and bureaucratic regimes; three, the equal need to
repair the devastated regions of Northern France and Belgium and the inner-city
industrial slums of cities like Liverpool and Chicago; four, the re-creation of
the university to make it a place of true scholarship instead of bureaucratic
requirements and to develop its potential as a type of 'regional' institution
which could cross national interests; and five, to establish a "Federation
of Cities" to work as a true League of Nations.<(47) Ibid., pp. 364-65
and 381.>
The Making of the Future: Ideas at War by Patrick
Geddes and Gilbert Slater was the most comprehensive and informative representation
of their thinking. Finally published in 1917, after editing by Victor Branford,
it outlines three distinct ideas concerning reconstruction identified by Geddes
and explores the history, tools and needs for rebuilding civilization.<(48)
Ibid., p. 371.> The Coming Polity: A Study in Reconstruction by Patrick
Geddes and Victor Branford expounds upon Geddes's efforts to build a nobler and
grander world than the one which was destroyed and further advocates the
reconstitution of the spiritual health of the population as being just as
central, if not more important than, its material well-being.<(49) Ibid.,
pp. 376-77.> Our Social Inheritance continues such ideas and provides
examples of the possibilities of creating a greater world than the one destroyed,
using the birth of the Golden Age out of the construction of the Parthenon in
Ancient Greece from the ruins of the Acropolis destroyed by the Persians as an
example.
Ideas at War was based upon the notion that war was a
state of mind, that war and peace comes from ideas and that it was the gap
between knowledge and the application of knowledge which created the problem.
Geddes felt communication was central and that the world had to stop accepting
war, or slums and poverty, as inevitable conditions beyond its control.<(50)
Ibid., p. 390.> Reconstruction could stress the importance of human
relationships and patriotic pursuits, focusing on national as opposed to
international interests and creating regionalism, the humanist interpretation
of society through history or ideas of civic betterment.<(51) Patrick Geddes
and Gilbert Slater, The Making of the Future: Ideas at War, pp. VII-VIII.>
With Ideas at War, Geddes campaigned for the need of a science of cities which
could study and interpret the war, its consequences and the condition of cities
and rural localities. This effort propelled the use of the civic survey to
greater importance and further helped to legitimize the role of the
professional town planner.
Geddes ardently advocated the rebuilding of ruined
lands but felt that problems would develop "if we aim at reconstruction
after the war on a lower level than the life before the war" because
people are thrown back to their basic primary needs and live at a much lower
level and sense of humanity as a consequence of war, and so must return to
something of greater significance to achieve a state of being more memorable
than the war itself.<(52) Ibid, p. 177> The real reconstruction for
Geddes was a spiritual renewal and reconstitution of human relationships which,
in conjunction with a material rebuilding, would be the only vehicle for
undertaking a true reconstruction and creating a lasting peace.
Geddes praises the efforts of Belgian architects to
produce "nobler and grander" designs of greater clearness and purpose
than the ones that existed before the war but questions the integrity of
rebuilding the cathedral at Rheims. Rheims, he argues, was admired for a
religious life and tradition which was no longer present when the city was
destroyed. Geddes raises important questions about what in fact one would be
reconstructing and asks for a definition of the cathedral's meaning for the
city, its region and the country.<(53) Ibid., pp. 51-59.> The
reconstruction at Rheims, in the long run, failed for Geddes. Although no
expense was spared to design plans for a grander, more efficient city, no
greater sense of history or glory was recaptured by the city; it remained only
one of 81 departments of the bureaucratic government exploited, according to
Geddes, by its capital.<(54) Boardman, p. 387.> Certainly an interesting
notion for reconstruction and urban redevelopment; however, it must be noted
that this discussion only seems suitable to Northern France and Belgium and
ignores the less discussed and poorer countries of Serbia, Poland and Romania
who were also desperately fighting for reparations, economic aid and
reconstruction assistance in the aftermath of World War I.
Conquering the Geddesian defined
"war-capital" was of ultimate importance in reconstruction. The
"war-capital" profited from war and, most especially, victory.
Countries united and fought wars by the whim of their capitals and the hold
they had on the life of the country. According to Geddes, a new regionalism was
needed to develop and diffuse the power of governmental elites to create
conflict and sustain a bureaucratic political machine.<(55) Geddes and
Slater, pp. 184-86.> In The Coming Polity Geddes further explores this
notion by expressing his disdain for the efforts of the League of Nations,
which was composed, for Geddes, by the very same leaders who created the
imperialism that had caused the war. He proposed a "League of Cities"
in its place where all provincial centers, and not just the
"war-capitals," would have power. He proposed that Barcelona and
Rheims should regain their historical prominence and serve with as much
influence as Berlin and Paris. It was not, after all, the skilled workers of
Nuremberg or the musicians of Vienna that the French and British hated but the
militarism and glory- seeking behavior of Berlin.<(56) Boardman, pp.
382-84.>
As elaborated on in Ideas at War, a true peace could
also be created by a new form of decentralized internationalism. This peace
would result from the establishment and relationship of international
organizations composed of experts in a particular specialty. Membership in such
international organizations would transcend national boundaries and develop
serious scholarship and expertise on varying disciplines. Geddes proposed
placing headquarters of these organizations at different locations around the
world with the aim of decentralizing the authority of political elites from the
"war-capitals" because new centers, or rather capitals, would be
created.<(57) Geddes and Slater, pp. 198-200.> The "University
Militant" as discussed in The Coming Polity was the university organism
Geddes created to reunite a disparate population in such a way. Focus on
scholarship, tolerance and the birth of such centers concerned with local
interests but also focused on broader concerns crossing national concerns could
help to unite civilization by propelling decentralized thinking.<(58)
Boardman, p. 381.>
Geddes did effectively develop a theory of
regionalism which influenced post- World War I town planning. This thinking
influenced planners working in Europe and the United States after the war and,
more than any other of the needs for reconstruction he advocated,
decentralization became the most well-conceived and developed by the
profession. The civic survey which he originated directly impacted upon
post-war society as well. It became one of the most effective tools to analyze
the devastation of the war and prepare for its reconstruction. It also helped
confirm the importance of planning for the future needs of cities through
thinking about their history, condition and the ensuing future for cities
world-wide.
Reconstruction as a more fundamental rebirth of the
spiritual and material health of a nation and its peoples, the planning for and
rebuilding of a nation to greater glory and the creation of a new regionalism
comprise the basic tenets of Geddes's philosophies of war and peace. These
conclusions were aimed at establishing a lasting peace which would heal a
damaged society and prevent the political and economic systems which had caused
World War I. Ultimately, though he died some years before the outbreak of World
War II, Geddes made a series of startling premonitions for how this damage and
imperialism would reflect upon future events if not curtailed in his time--
turmoil which not only did not come to an end with the bloodiest war known to
man at that time, but seems only to have magnified in its wake.
CHAPTER V
George B. Ford in France: The Planner as
International Consultant
"If war is the source of the city, then, being
an urban planner, I'm for war.?
Paul Virilio
George Burdett Ford (1879-1930), born in
Massachusetts and educated in engineering and architecture at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the Ecole des Beaux Arts, made his career as a town
planner. An ardent advocate for building height regulations, comprehensive
planning and the need for city-wide planning commissions, Ford campaigned for
the scientific management of cities in the debate between the City Beautiful
and the City Efficient in pre-World War I America. Ford's most significant
contribution to the profession of town planning, however, came with the survey
work he did during the war as an international consultant with the American Red
Cross and, later, with his post-war reconstruction work. He was hired as an
expert to advise the work of the French organization La Renaissance des Cites
and asked by them to prepare the reconstruction plans for the city of Rheims,
France.
Ford first went to France in 1916 as one of the original
members of the American Industrial Commission. The Commission was initiated
largely to study the industrial and commercial reconstruction needs of France
after the close of the war. The visit established relationships with the French
Trade Commission and formed the foundation for the participation of American
banking and industrial institutions' in post-war restructuring and
rebuilding.<(59) , "Will Aid to Rebuild Shattered France," The New
York Times, Aug. 5, 1916, 3:7.>
Full-fledged American participation in war relief
began in 1917 when the American Relief Clearing House was taken over by the
American Red Cross and the American Friends Service Committee began to
participate in civilian relief and minor rebuilding efforts. In March of that
year Ford began his work with the American Red Cross. He first organized the
Reconstruction Research and Propaganda Service of the American Red Cross. Its
mission was to establish a working relationship with French technical
professionals and government officials in order to experiment with construction
techniques, town planning schemes, sanitation and agriculture for the
reconstruction. (See Figure 1.) Ford first began to survey reconstruction in
France in October, 1917 when he documented the model repair projects the
American Red Cross had undertaken in five villages in the Somme. After the
American Red Cross began to demobilize, the survey work initiated by Ford was
turned over in February, 1919 to the La Renaissance des Cites which had been
founded in 1915 as a voluntary advisory committee composed of leading French
town planners, bankers, engineers, artists, lawyers, etc. who could assist the
French government and local communities in reconstruction efforts.<(60)
George B. Ford, Out of the Ruins, pp. 230-31.>
Actual rebuilding was difficult during the war. Many
of the most damaged areas were inaccessible because of fighting and, once the
Germans were driven back, there was no guarantee that a reclaimed village would
not be invaded again. It was dangerous to inhabit these areas and it was
expensive to rebuild them-- especially if they were only going to be destroyed
again. Civilian relief and the construction of temporary barracks- type wooden
structures became a much more suitable and responsible policy at this time. The
immediate quality of life and needs of the population were being responded to
by the French Government, French organizations and foreign relief associations,
mostly funded by Americans. Concerns over industrial, economic and agricultural
devastation early in the war, however, evolved into a concern over long-range
issues which the French Government had to be prepared for in the aftermath of
the war.
France suffered profound devastation as a result of
the four year-long war, most of which was fought on French soil. The
agricultural lands of Northern France, being 2% of the land area of the entire
country, lay completely in ruin at the end of the war. 2,600 cities and towns,
in which approximately 900,000 individual buildings and 23,000 factories had been
destroyed, needed to be rebuilt.<(61) , "French Lands Restored,"
The New York Times, July 13, 1925, 11:2.> A complicated arrangement of
international economic restructuring, international securitization, war
reparations and loans financed the massive reconstruction efforts, which cost
the French Government some 100 billion francs (approximately $33 billion in
1920's United States currency). The entire restoration effort was so daunting
that it took the combined efforts of governmental and private French
organizations and by various, primarily American, relief agencies. The French
divided their reconstruction into agriculture and industrial
"reconstitution," town planning, housing and physical rebuilding of
the devastated lands.<(62) , "Great Work of Reconstituting France.
Co-operative System the Basis of Efforts to Repair the Fifteen Billion Dollars'
worth of Material Damage Done by the Invading Germans," The New York
Times, June 22, 1919, Section IV, 8:1.>
From the onset of the war, the French Government took
the responsibility of providing for displaced refugees and developing a program
of just compensation for property losses. This responsibility, taken up
similarly by the Belgians, was wholly revolutionary for its time; no other
government had ever taken it upon themselves to be financially responsible for
such losses as a result of war. France paid all war damages; two bills, passed
in December, 1914 and April, 1919, insured state reimbursement for all material
losses. Most significantly, the 1919 law provided that property owners who
wanted to remain and rebuild on their original property would be reimbursed the
pre-war appraised value with an additional allowance to pay for the increased
costs of materials and labor. Property owners who decided not to rebuild at the
original site but moved to a new area received only the pre-war value of the
property.<(63) , "Reconstruction in France," The New York Times,
Aug. 6, 1922, Section III, 15:2.>
The French Government felt it was indispensable to:
"...assure the reconstruction of our villages in
a logical, hygienic, and aesthetic manner, taking into account all forms of
modern progress, while at the same time paying heed to the limits imposed upon
the inhabitants of each region by the climate, the available building
materials, the nature of their work, and the customs of each
locality."<(64) , "Architects Design New Homes for Ruined Lands.
Competition Under French Government Auspices Produces Hundreds of Artistic
Plans for Rebuilding of Devastated Northern France," The New York Times,
March 3, 1918, Section VII, 7:1.> Public or religious buildings were
required to be reconstructed in "...the same character, importance, and
use as the destroyed building."<(65) George B. Ford, Out of the Ruins,
p. 131.>
Early experiments in state-initiated reconstruction
called for decentralization of the population, an important trend in post- war
planning, and the replacement of ruined towns with garden cities. The state
looked to the model garden city of Draveil, France built in 1909. It was a co-
operative town, completely self-supporting. The French Government hoped more
such towns could be constructed and it would only have to acquire the land for
leasing and facilitate loans to such co-operatives.<(66) , "Garden
Cities for France," The New York Times, July 10, 1917, 3:7.> However,
such experimental ideas never truly materialized into any organized
reconstruction program for the French; individuals, in most part, wanted to
return to their towns and wait for them to be rebuilt rather than live in a new
town, whenever it was constructed. Therefore, the French Government became more
involved with a series of revolutionary legislative efforts relating to
hygiene, public health, housing and town planning. Reconstruction efforts in
France aimed to regain a sense of place and character for the destroyed cities
and towns but without the burdens of centuries of unregulated development.
France had a long-standing tradition of technocratic
city planning and engineering well before the start of World War I. Even so,
the new post-war emphasis on compulsory town planning was without precedent,
even within the French traditions of urban design and city building. A March,
1919 law, adopted two months before a similar British law, required every town
over 10,000 inhabitants to make a plan for its "improvement, embellishment
and extension," before any permanent structures could be built and
detailed that the plan shall determine:
"the direction, width, and character of the
thoroughfares; the location, extent, and lay-out of public open spaces,
including parks, playgrounds, and reservation; also the location of public
buildings and monuments."<(67) Ford, pp. 144-45.>
A locality could hire a consultant of its own
choosing and, if it could not afford the cost of a plan, the state would pay
for it. Once completed, a plan had to pass the Bureau of Hygiene, a board of
the local town commissioners and a national town planning commission.<(68)
Ibid., pp. 145-46.>
The French Government also enacted a number of other
laws affecting town planning. A rather controversial law, enacted in November,
1918, addressed the expropriation of private property for public use; its
ultimate purpose, revised in March, 1919, was aimed at settling disputed
property line battles and facilitating the reparceling of property.
The most restrictive laws passed by the French
Government were a series of sanitation ordinances for both rural and urban
communities. These laws, Model A for cities and Model B for rural communities,
demanded complete compliance by all communities in the devastated regions and
were urged upon all other areas of the country for adoption. These laws
established requirements for all new construction, from the number of bathrooms
required in specific dwelling types and floor to area height in bedrooms to
which types of structures people were allowed to sleep in and building permit
requirements.<(69) Ibid., pp. 151-55.> These restrictions on construction
were enacted by the French in conjunction with other town planning legislation
in order to rid their cities of the congestion, overcrowding and unsanitary
conditions created by hundreds of years of organic urban growth. The French
hoped to duplicate the historic prominence their cities and towns possessed before
World War I and further saw the reconstruction as an opportunity to relieve
many of the difficulties created by ancient towns trying to cope in a modern
industrialized society.
Significant experiments and design ideas for the
reconstruction were being solicited by the French government as early as 1916.
Garden city advocates, most notably represented by the British, were eager to
offer their ideas and participate in any exhibitions held by the French. Any
number of groups organized around their interests and lobbied the government
for legislation. Influenced by such lobbying, the French Government began to
enact an exemplary set of laws to protect the rights of the population. It also
began to look forward to the post-war reconstruction and the goals of the
policies they were about to set in motion. The government saw the advantage of
the vast amounts of talent, innovation and skill which had assembled itself
internationally and understood that the reconstruction would be an opportunity
to modernize their lands.<(70) William L. Chenery, "American Rebuilder
of Martyred Rheims," The New York Times, July 11, 1920, Section III,
5:1.>
All of the French architectural societies organized
into a national federation in order to combine their resources and avoid any
repetition of reconstruction work. The first congress organized by the
federation was held from November 26-28, 1918. The Office du Batiment et des
Travaux Publics was formed at the event and was composed of the presidents of
all the societies which were present at the congress; it was organized to meet
once per week to discuss technical matters, share information and standardize
reconstruction efforts, especially building techniques, whenever
possible.<(71) Ford, pp. 233-35.>
Ford recognized the fundamental need of a written
document which could succinctly summarize the existing data and information
about the devastation and the reconstruction efforts. A survey was needed in
order to have a fundamental comprehensive knowledge about the conditions and opportunities
presented to the government so it could make the most suitable
decisions.<(72) Ibid., p. VII.> This understanding for Ford was based,
most likely, on his earlier work documenting the reconstruction experiments of
the American Red Cross in 1917; he understood from first- hand experience, as
Patrick Geddes and others were advocating, the need to make future decisions
based upon some assessment of present day conditions and the history behind
them.
This effort by Ford became organized under the Reconstruction
Bureau of the American Red Cross, which he established to undertake the effort.
His survey of Northern France is a compilation of documentation work undertaken
by Ford, interviews with government officials and an analysis of information
gathered by the Reconstruction Bureau. The manuscript was published in 1919
under the title, Out of the Ruins. It was the first comprehensive document of
its kind. It attempted to give a coordinated representation and discussion of
all the efforts at reconstruction in France. It outlines the general conditions
and devastation of France, the development of the war, the organization and
effects of private relief agencies, French governmental laws affecting
compensation and town planning, the governmental organization and departments
organized for reconstruction and the outcome and necessities of the French
people as they existed in 1919.
It was a revolutionary effort-- especially by a
foreigner; the French were furiously courting American aid but were weary of
loosing a determinate say over their affairs and employment of French citizens
to any foreigner. Most likely, Ford was only able to undertake such an effort
because of his forthright commitment to work with the French and not by his own
agenda since his arrival there. With the survey though, Ford cemented his
relationship with the French and established himself as an up-to-date expert on
town planning practice and reconstruction in France.
Soon after the publication of Ford's survey in 1919
the American Red Cross began to demobilize its services in France. La
Renaissance des Cites took this as their opportunity to hire Ford to undertake
plans for the reconstruction of the city of Rheims, France. Rheims had been a
focal point of international interest and debate since the destructive force of
Germany's attacks against French cities became known in the early years of the
war.
Although the first competition for its reconstruction
was not held until approximately May, 1919, plans for its reconstruction were
being made by architects and engineers as early as 1916.<(73) , "Great
Work of Reconstituting France. Co-operative System the Basis of Efforts to
Repair the Fifteen Billion Dollars' Worth of Material Damage Done by the
Invading Germans," The New York Times, June 22, 1919, Section IV, 8:1.>
Since so much talk had centered on the destruction of the city and its famous
history and cathedral, focus on the reconstruction was great; any architect
would gain a great deal of prestige if chosen for this high profile commission.
Twenty-two projects were entered in this first competition; in fact, such a
debate raged over which project should be chosen that the city engineer
attempted to make a composite plan of all the entries. The departmental
commission, however, refused to accept the plan. When the process had to begin
all over again as a result of the failed entry, the city council disbanded and
new elections were held in which sixteen Socialists gained seats and called for
a new competition. It became too political and difficult a process to agree on
a Frenchman, so the La Renaissance des Cites asked Ford if he would consider
the commission even though he had already rejected offers by them to design
some 200 city plans.<(74) Chenery.>
By early 1917, Rheims had been completely devastated
by German shelling. In the first three weeks of April of that year 65,000
shells hit the city. (See Figures 2, 3, 4 & 5.)
An international debate raged over the morality, or
immorality, of shelling the cathedral. It was clearly made a symbol by the
Allies of Germany's willful disregard of humanity and their barbarity. The
shelling of the cathedral galvanized popular support for the French more
quickly than the destruction of housing, libraries or even hospitals. It was an
international symbol which represented the epitome of French history, tradition
and charm. In addition, it was the type of monument for which people who had
visited France before the war would have a particular memory. (See Figure 6.)
The French made an international appeal for assistance in their claim that the
shelling was willful unjustified destruction of a non-military target and
concluded that
"whenever the Germans suffered a reverse
anywhere along the western front they revenged it by landing a few more big
shells on the venerable ruin, and that the number of shells was always
proportioned to the gravity of the reverse."<(75) , "Bombarding
Rheims Cathedral," The New York Times, April 28, 1917, 12:5.>
The Germans consistently maintained, however, that
the towers were lookout posts for the military. The arguments raged in vain; by
the beginning of May, 1917 the cathedral already lay in complete ruin and was,
according to Cardinal Lucon, "the image of the devastation of
desolation."<(76) , "Rheims Ruin Growing," The New York
Times, May 3, 1917, 24:2.> The pinnacles were smashed, the roof mostly caved
in with the vaulting collapsed, the flying buttresses were broken, etc. and it
was feared the building might collapse. In fact, the shelling of the cathedral
had been so severe the first few days of May that it caused eleven other fires
to begin nearby and the Hotel de Ville caught fire and was destroyed.<(77) ,
"Rheims Cathedral May Fall," The New York Times, May 5, 1917,
3:5.> Damage to the city by the Germans was so severe that at the end of the
war even the original street pattern of the city was no longer discernible.
(See Figures 7 & 8.)
The meaning of the war and of the cathedral itself
was addressed early by the French. Many felt that the cathedral was beyond
repair and that it should stand as a relic- - a monument to the barbarity of
the Germans. There was a proposal made in June, 1917 by an organization funded
from America known as the French Restoration Fund which would make the
cathedral a pantheon; it would be a "monument to the dead" which
would be conserved in-situ as a ruin at which all allied nations could place
their battle flags.<(78) , "For a Pantheon at Rheims," The New
York Times, June 18, 1917, 4:3.> Translated to post-war reconstruction
France, the preservation ideologies represented by these earlier discussions
and proposals represented the anger of the French towards the war, and the
Germans, and came to mean that they did not want the cathedral
"restored." The French were opposed to building a replica or a
replacement monument; they wanted their original cathedral rebuilt using as
much of the original carvings, sculptures and materials as possible in order to
regain the monument which had been lost.<(79) , "Rheims Not to be
Restored," The New York Times, July 20, 1922, 16:5.> There was,
however, something odd and unmistakedly different about what remained of the
cathedral; ironically, its hue had changed as a result of all the shelling from
a pre-war cold grey to warmer tones of red and brown.
Ford accepted the offer to design plans for the
reconstruction of Rheims. He was certainly flattered by the offer of La
Renaissance des Cites but, more importantly, he must have been excited by the
opportunity presented at Rheims to make a noble, important city more efficient,
sanitary and grand. It was as well a herculean task, of 14,000 buildings, 9,000
had completely disappeared and the other 5,000 were so badly damaged that it
was estimated that only 2,000 of them may be repairable. All textile factories,
the basis of the city's economy, had been decimated and the Germans had
destroyed all water supply systems, electricity, rail road lines, canals and
sanitation systems in Rheims. Ford had to rebuild the entire city, modernize it
and yet respect its historic character, while replaning for an industrial city
that could maintain an anticipated new population of 300,000 from a pre-war
population of 150,000.<(80) Chenery.>
Ford's plans were submitted for approval early in
1920. Two local public hearings, lasting eighteen days each, were convened, in
which much public interest and debate raged over his proposals. One of the most
strident objections by the town was the use of private lands for public
purposes. It was a difficult issue but, because there was so much damage, the
council felt it was reasonable to rebuild wider and more suitable thoroughfares
and roads. First the departmental committee and then the national committee in
Paris, as required by law for adoption and the release of funds, approved
Ford's proposal. It was, in fact, the first municipal plan submitted and
approved, and it was hoped that it would serve as a model for others.<(81)
A.C. Holliday, "The Rebuilding of Rheims, The Town Planning Review, Vol.
9, Nu. 1 (July, 1921), p. 5.>
Ford's plans called for the development of four new
districts; one each to the north, south, east and west of the original city.
These would be four entirely new communities with alternating districts of
housing and industry, each with their own market and small community center.
The historic center city was to be rebuilt with more functional modern
thoroughfares connecting it to the new proposed developments although he tried
to preserve the original street pattern wherever it was not necessary to create
a new arterial.
A pattern of parks, playgrounds and open spaces were
planned in order to open up the city and provide essential light, air and
recreation. One of these open spaces was planned for the area behind the
cathedral in order to afford a better view to the monument, which would be
rebuilt.<(82) Chenery.> Ford designed plans to rebuild the rail roads,
canals and sanitation systems as well, and he planned a new passenger station
for the central city and a freight station for the new industrial areas. He
planned building groups according to the notion of "districting" and
placed public and semi- public buildings together according to function as much
as possible and created a series of district centers for the different
activities which took place at these groupings. In order to insure proper
hygienic conditions he made certain to locate houses a sufficient distance from
one another, close enough to get to work but not so close as to be unhealthy.
Along the same lines, he instituted a building height policy which limited all
buildings based upon the width of the street they faced.<(83) Holliday, pp.
7-11.> (See Figures 9 & 10.)
Once the plans were completed and approved Ford
returned to America and left the actual reconstruction work to the French. Ford
had received a great deal of support, assistance and input from the French
since he agreed to take the commission and felt they could appropriately finish
the work themselves; besides it was, after all, not his city, and he was always
careful not to override French authority and position in reconstructing their
own country. Ford had made his reputation by respecting the French and their
concerns and expertise. The process of financing the reconstruction work was
the next task after the plans had been designed and approved and Ford
undoubtedly had no interest in waiting for the government to provide the
capital or being involved in the further political maneuvers which would
inevitably occur.
Two-thirds of Ford's plans for the city were
implemented. The city had to obtain government permission to float 500 million
francs ($1.5 billion dollars in 1920's United States currency) in loans for
which the government would be accepting responsibility and paying the interest
while the city would be capitalizing the amount due for its reconstruction from
German reparations not yet paid.<(84) , "Rheims Seeks a Loan," The
New York Times, Feb. 19, 1921, 17:3.> The cathedral was entirely rebuilt and
bears a detailed resemblance to the pre-war building. (See Figure 11.) To what
degree it became the same building it was before the war cannot be determined.
Although Patrick Geddes disagreed, it did gain a more prominent position in the
city due to the new view corridors which Ford opened up on to it even if the
building did not become something greater then its past history. Geddes was
unable to view it this way, but perhaps it gained a more notable importance
because the reconstruction made it a testament to the will of the French people
who rebuilt it and not a testimony to the war's horror which some suggested it
remain. Ford did not comment on the condition of the cathedral's restoration
but viewed the city in its entirety-- securing its future by trying to assert
its historical building types and traditions while making it a thoroughly modern,
sanitary and efficient city.
Upon his return to the United States Ford continued
to campaign for the principles of the City Efficient and lectured on the
importance of zoning ordinances and building height regulations. He maintained
close contacts with La Renaissance des Cites and consulted on the
reconstruction efforts at Soissons and other French cities, but he made his
life in the United States after he had completed the plans for Rheims. Ford
also aligned himself with the burgeoning regional movement taking form in
post-World War I America and, before his death in 1930, consulted on the
Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs and served as an advisor to the
Regional Planning Federation of the Philadelphia Tri- State District. Ford's
service in France remains the most significant of his accomplishments and a
hallmark for the practice of international consulting and the expert city
planner. He went to France and brought the techniques of his profession,
refined their application and proved their usefulness, all while working within
the parameters of French authority.
CHAPTER VI
An International Effort at Reconstruction
World War I had a broad international impact.
Politically and economically, as well as morally, the war reorganized the way
individuals interacted with one another. It also brought about the development
of more complex tools of international finance, construction techniques,
international study and direct relationships between Europeans and Americans.
Outside of United States public sector political and military interest in the
war in Europe, the private sector in America participated in an unprecedented
and undeniably important role in relief and reconstruction.
Private involvement in the war effort developed out
of an economic interest in the post-war rebuilding, a philanthropic concern for
aid and reconstruction and concerns by like-minded organizations and groups
affected by the war in Europe. The new exchange of information, financial
assistance and technical support brought new markets, notoriety and
international legitimacy to many of these organizations and also substantially
intensified techniques and relationships which otherwise may have taken years
to develop. This international concern and curiosity about the impact of the
war in Europe established new opportunities for Americans to go abroad.
Individuals who participated in this effort gained distinct knowledge from the
experience and transferred these experiences back to the United States. This
helped to transform the United States and the American role in Europe in the
post-World War I era.
A fundamental relationship between America and Europe
began well before America entered the war. Beginning in 1916, private
industrial and commercial concerns in the United States courted primarily the
French. The American Manufactures Export Association and the American
Industrial Commission began sending delegates to France to participate in
studies which were aimed at hastening the rebuilding of French cities after the
war.<(85) , "Delay Paris Exposition," The New York Times, March
17, 1916, 4:6.> American industrial interests recognized that since natural
resources, labor and most all machinery would be completely devastated after
the war France, and Belgium as well, would have to import most if not all of
the materials needed for the reconstruction.<(86) , "Destruction By War
Nearly Six Billions," The New York Times, Jan. 26, 1917, 10:3.>
American manufacturers and contracting companies were attempting as early as 1916
to set the groundwork for American participation.
In 1917 the first contract to be closed by an
American firm was signed by the New York banking firm of Kennedy, Mitchell
& Co. It called for 200 million francs (c. $6.5 million U.S. currency) for
the rebuilding of structures destroyed in the invaded French territories of
Verdun, Argonne and the Heights of the Meuse. The United States was expected to
provided most of the materials needed for the rebuilding, which would be
purchased by the import and export departments of the banking firm.<(87) ,
"Americans to Rebuild Ruined French Cities," The New York Times,
April 13, 1917, 6:4.> From this early relationship, commerce and industry
saw the distinct advantages and financial incentives of a strong relationship
with French reconstruction authorities. American government representatives
felt that the war economy had post-war conversion applications and understood
that they were going to have to lend money to Europeans so they could purchase
American materials and, to do so, trade conditions and tariffs had to be
stabilized to allow European authorities to purchase materials from the United
States on an affordable basis.
Large construction contracts began to be awarded to
American companies when the Armistice was signed in 1918. The French government
had committed to repairing all war damages, and since the devastation of the
country was so severe, the government began to issue securities against the
German indemnity so that work could begin as soon as possible. Vulcan Steel Products
Company (whose director was also one of the largest stockholders of United
states Steel Corporation) signed one of these contracts awarded at the
Armistice in association with two of the largest American contracting
companies: McClintic-Marshall Construction Company and McArthur Brothers
Company. This particular contract was for rebuilding the Nancy district and
posted tentative costs at $250 million with a cap at $500 million. Structural
steel and concrete were the most logical candidates for building materials
because they were the cheapest and could be made to appear visually very
similar to traditional French stone construction.<(88) , "Americans to
Engage to Rebuild Nancy," The New York Times, July 2, 1919, 1:3.>
One distinct advantage of using American contracting
companies for the French was the introduction of American large-scale
construction methods. The French had a depressed labor force and industrial
production capacity after the war and were actively seeking any labor and
machine saving methods for reconstruction. They estimated it would take the
available manpower nearly twenty years to rebuild the devastated regions
without the introduction of new construction techniques.<(89) William L.
Chenery, "American Rebuilder of Martyred Rheims," The New York Times,
July 11, 1920, Section III, 5:1.> The French desperately needed assistance,
but they wanted to ensure that no work would be taken away from French citizens
and felt that this was a more adaptable solution to their dilemma. American
large-scale construction techniques had been recently developed with the
building of new buildings in modern materials which covered entire city blocks;
and it was felt that the coordination inherent in "large-scale
contracting" would be well suited to the problems of reconstructing whole
towns devastated in the war.<(90) , "American Methods to Rebuild
France," The New York Times, Aug. 19, 1923, Section II, 1:3.>
Although reconstruction was a lucrative proposition
and American companies stood to make a great deal of money from the endeavor,
United States involvement in relief and reconstruction was not
characteristically provided by the contracting firms but by a network of
concerned organizations providing financial and volunteer technical assistance
to France. In fact, many of the original contacts made from the United States
concerned civilian relief in the war-torn areas of France by philanthropic or
special interest organizations. Organizations such as the Smith College Relief
Unit, the American Fund for French Wounded, the French Restoration Fund, the
American Committee for Devastated France and various church groups from the
United States all significantly impacted upon the quality of life, health and
well-being of French citizens living in the devastated regions of Northern
France. These organizations were funded in the United States by support from
philanthropists and contributions from the general public.
The American Restoration Fund was organized in 1917
to raise funds for restoring and replanning French monuments destroyed in the
war. Mrs. Cecil Sartoris, whose fame was derived from being married to General
Grant's grandson, believed that France could be rehabilitated through the
restoration of its monuments.<(91) , "Would Restore French Art,"
The New York Times, April 17, 1917, 11:2.> Such noted Americans as Theodore
Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Henry Clay Frick donated to the organization
and served as executives. Most of the other organizations established before
the end of the war, however, felt that civilian relief and minor rebuilding
efforts would more significantly rehabilitate Northern France. These efforts
also, however, seem to have relied on the personal memory and connection of at
least some of the organizations members to France before the war. The need to
raise funds and send relief originated from the shock of the disruption and
destruction caused to something pleasurable in their personal memory,
galvanized by a sense of moral responsibility and duty to relieve the burden of
French citizens.
Anne Morgan, daughter of the late J.P. Morgan,
founded the American Fund for French Wounded in 1917 to provide for civilian
relief and care for battle wounded. In March, 1918, however, the organization
divided and formed a second organization, the American Committee for Devastated
France, whose mission was to rehabilitate the villages recaptured from German
occupation.<(92) , "French Aid Society Split," The New York Times,
March 20, 1918, 12:7.> Volunteers sent reports detailing the severity of the
destruction caused by the Germans while administering civilian aid. Commonly,
many of the groups organized to provide civilian aid found the devastation
caused by the Germans unfathomable and recognized the importance of
reconstruction to providing adequate renewal of the population. The various
pleas for reconstruction aid from the private sector began to galvanize towards
the end of the war, after the devastation had been reviewed and it was deemed
safe to return to these areas.
One of the most curious forms of privately pursued
reconstruction in Europe was a relationship known as "adoption." This
process seems to have developed more as a curiosity than as a productive form
of aid, but as the idea gained more publicity wealthier individuals began to adopt
cities which had some special meaning for them and funded their reconstruction.
Whole cities in fact adopted devastated towns in Northern France but these
adoptions were not as productive in providing needed financial assistance and
coordination for rebuilding. The idea gained such allure that cities such as
Ham in the Somme shamelessly wrote to American newspapers advertising for an
individual or American town to adopt them-- each city seeking adoption trying
to persuade a potential benefactor of the great and noble history of their
city, and some even promised references.<(93) , "For the Town of
Ham," The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1918, Section III, 7:3.>
Vitrimont, for instance, was adopted by a group of
California cities, initiated by two prominent female citizens of the state.
Restoration of the town was finished by 1920 and, it was, in fact, the first
French city to be completely restored. (See Figure 1.) Curiously, whether it
was the French who portrayed it this way or the Americans who wanted to perceive
it this way, the city was actually said to contain architectural elements from
certain California cities; the rebuilt town hall, for instance, although
conforming to French traditions was said to portray elements reminiscent of the
architecture of San Diego.<(94) , "Vitrimont Now Restored," The
New York Times, Jan. 14, 1920, 8:8.>
A more traditional relationship between benefactor
and town was that of Belle Skinner and the town of Hattonchatel. A wealthy
resident of Mt. Holyoke, Massachusetts, Ms. Skinner had visited the city before
the war and thought that it resembled her New England town so, when reports
from the Massachusetts regiment which liberated it from four years of German
occupation detailing the extent of devastation were communicated in the United
States, Skinner decided to fund the reconstruction. Reconstruction was
completed in September, 1923 under the execution of the Boston architect John
D. Sanford whom Skinner employed to undertake the assignment. It cost her an
estimated $1.5 million, and she was presented with the key to the city at its
ceremonial reopening on the 16th of that month.<(95) , "French Village
Rebuilt," The New York Times, Sept. 15, 1923, 17:6.>
Such adoption arrangements did actually rebuild a few
of the devastated towns. They also facilitated obtaining some of the loans for
the cities which the French Government needed to obtain. The idea of adoption
became a publicity technique and advertisement for some cities. Ex-Mayor of the
city of Chicago and Ex-Governor of the state of Illinois Edward F. Dunne tried
to initiate the adoption of Rheims; the mayor of Rheims gratefully responded to
the idea and outlined the needs of the city for which Chicago could be helpful.
No substantial relationship, however, developed from these contacts, and
Chicago never made any offers of donations or assistance. It seems to have been
merely a publicity attempt on the part of a machine progressive who succeeded
in getting some notoriety for his city.
The French Government was a little cautious about the
idea of adoption since it provided for the payment of all war losses in full
and felt that adoption might mean some property owners were receiving funds to
reconstruct a structure that a private benefactor had already rebuilt. The
government was also concerned that if gifts of supplies and materials continued
to be donated private business would not be properly reestablished. The
Minister of Liberated Regions suggested that private individuals might give
buildings such as public baths which are intended for all residents of a town
and not rebuild losses for which the government would provide
compensation.<(96) George B. Ford, Out of the Ruins, pp. 258-60.>
Catholic and Protestant religious bodies officially
began to organize committees to provide for the rebuilding of destroyed
churches in Northern France in 1919. Both groups advocated the need to rebuild
these churches in order to help reconstitute society and relieve some of the
suffering of their parishioners by providing a place of worship. The Catholic
Society to Help the Devastated Churches of France and the Protestant
Interchurch Committee raised money for the permanent reconstruction of the
damaged churches and for the construction of structures which would serve as
temporary places of worship until the original churches were reconstructed and
then later be used as ancillary church structures like schools or parochial
houses.<(97) , "French Church Needs," The New York Times, May 11,
1919, Section II, 2:4.>
Unique opportunities for international cooperation
and study were presented by the course of the war. One group which organized in
1921 to take distinct advantage of the situation was the American Students
Reconstruction Unit. It was based upon the Harvard Reconstruction Unit which had
been organized by Robert L. Buell in the summer of 1920 and sent twenty-five
Harvard students to France to intern under the French Ministry of
Reconstruction. It had been such a valuable learning tool and useful endeavor
that the architectural schools at Yale, Princeton, Cornell, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Columbia and Pennsylvania endorsed an expanded program
to be undertaken in the summer of 1921. Fifty architectural students from the
associated universities were sent to Soissons, Rheims and Verdun under the
direction of three professors from Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and Columbia. The purpose of the trip was to provide some training
and practical experience for the students while also creating a better understanding
of culture between the two nations. Students assisted in surveying land to
determine original property lines and street configurations, making measured
drawings for restoration plans and helping to design new schools, playgrounds
and recreation centers.<(98) Rolf William Bauham, "Why Rebuild War
Wasted France?," The New York Times, March 5, 1922, Section III, 14:1.>
A group of the American students also helped establish a fund for Somme-Py
which provided adequate funding for the construction of a new town hall in 1925
from plans which had been designed by the students in 1921.<(99) ,
"Thanks From France," The New York Times, Jan. 13, 1925, 18:6.>
Relief and reconstruction efforts initiated by
private business, philanthropic and institutional concerns formed a more
personal level of commitment and participation in the war effort on the part of
many Americans. Americans pursued a relationship with the French for financial,
moral, philanthropic and educational reasons. World War I hastened the development
of production techniques, construction technologies, a distinct and rather
romantic relationship of Americans to France, cultural understanding and
training. In a very obvious fashion it also Americanized the culture of France;
the way Americans "do business" or "get things done" was
transferred to France as was a tradition of uniquely American forms of
architecture through the professionals, students and benefactors who assisted
in the reconstruction. Although these efforts may seem rather small or inconsequential,
French society did become saturated at every level with American ideology, from
the training of social service workers to the design of a new town hall, and
this profoundly amended the traditions and international relations of France
which had existed until that time.
CHAPTER VII
Reconstruction as International Pacifism: The Work of
the American Friends Service Committee
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) was
founded in April, 1917, only twenty-four days after the United States entered
World War I. On principle, the Quaker Society of Friends believed it was their
responsibility to help alleviate human suffering, transform mankind and
administer to mans needs, especially in times of crisis. The Quakers, who
already had a long history of philanthropic relief service, philosophically
objected to war and created the AFSC in order to relieve every Quaker of draft
age from service and/or imprisonment from failure to serve. The Quakers equally
found service in a noncombat position as a conscientious objector as
objectionable as a combat position. The AFSC was established in an agreement
with the United States government by which these young men of draft age would
participate in the war effort but not as part of any military service.<(100)
Mary Hoxie Jones, Swords into Ploughshares, pp. 13-16.>
With the work of the AFSC, the Quakers felt they
could carry out a campaign of relief and reconstruction which would not only
adhere to their principles of social responsibility and administering to the
needs of others but also help to prevent the reoccurrence of violence.<(101)
Clarence E. Pickett, Problems Involved in Administering Relief Abroad, pp.
23-24.> They felt it was their duty to both administer to the immediate
needs of the population and help to plan a permanent rehabilitation which would
improve the general conditions and standard of living of the population before
the war. The AFSC helped to build temporary shelters, called maisons
demonstables, tried to convert the materials of war into materials for peace
and worked to improve the modern French farm, farmhouse, village, use of
machinery and spirit of cooperation.<(102) Rufus Jones, The American Friends
in France, 1917-1919, pp. 11-12.>
The construction of the temporary wooden barracks,
known as maisons demonstables by the French (demountable houses), formed the
core of the Friends Society's reconstruction work in France. They created a
production scheme which adhered strongly to the principles of scientific
management and developed a building type which reorganized French village life
lasting well beyond the close of the war and establishing a precedent for
constructing "temporary" structures by many different bodies--
structures which were adapted for new uses in the post-war era.
After a April 30, 1917 meeting at which fourteen
different Quaker groups came together in Philadelphia to discuss the problems
facing Quaker males of draft age, a committee of three Friends visited the head
of the American Red Cross and the director of all foreign war-relief work to
discuss the possibility of granting "furloughs" for all Quakers who
went to Europe in civilian relief service. (See Figures 1 & 2.) The
American Friends Service Committee which was formed established an agreement with
the United States draft board in which Quakers could be released from military
service and a "triangular merger" was formed consisting of the War
Victims Committee of the English Friends, the American Red Cross and the
American Friends Service Committee.<(103) Mary Hoxie Jones, pp. 13-17.>
The agreement was satisfactory to the American government and the American Red
Cross provided that the Friends paid to train and equip all their own workers
themselves.<(104) Marvin R. Weisbord, Some Form of Peace. True Stories of
the American Friends Service Committee at Home and Abroad, p. 4.>
The first AFSC unit was sent to France in September,
1917. It was known as the Haverford Unit because it trained for six weeks at
Haverford College in the summer of 1917 prior to departing for France. It
established their first equipe about 150 miles east of Paris at Sermaize. They
divided their work details into five categories: medical, agricultural,
transport, building and relief.<(105) Mary Hoxie Jones, p. 17.> The need,
however, for housing displaced refugees and refugees returning to devastated
towns recaptured from the Germans was most urgent. The Quakers wanted to help
return the French to some form of civilized living and enable them to
participate in the reconstruction efforts as soon as possible. The construction
of shelters which could be assembled quickly and inexpensively and which would
not impede later rebuilding was developed to address the acute housing
shortage. Because wooden barracks were already being constructed by the government
to billet soldiers, they were a somewhat familiar building type.
Each "demountable" wooden house consisted
of two rooms, the larger approximately 13 square feet, and had a red-tile or
tarpaper roof and window openings were all covered by oilcloth until glass
started to become available toward the end of the war. The houses were
assembled from 21 sections of pre-fabricated, one-inch thick plywood panels
which were nailed on the outside of a frame. The floors were composed of eight
tongue-and-groove sections and the roof was constructed from 18 of the same.
The wooden houses were stained a dark brown and the doors were painted
green.<(106) Weisbord, p. 12.> (See Figures 3, 4 & 5.) They were
placed at an appropriate distance from one another in order to alleviate some
of the "overcrowded, ill-planned, unsanitary" conditions of farm
villages identified by the Friends workers as one of the traditional problems
of French towns which could be remedied in the reconstruction.<(107) Rufus
Jones, pp. 11-12.>
Most of these wooden barracks were set-up on the site
of a destroyed dwelling, but some individuals did not want the ruins disturbed
before they were inspected by an indemnity officer. Property owners felt that
they would receive more sympathy if the officer saw a pile of ruins then if he
saw a new cottage. In order to attend to this concern but still house the
refugee populations, the AFSC began to build what were called "cite"
adjacent to the devastated villages.<(108) It cannot now be determined how
much these "cite" influenced the direction of the future growth of
these towns or whether in fact they lasted long enough to actually form a
relationship with the original town. Although at least some of these wooden
demountable houses, built either as "cites" or as individual
dwellings, do still exist today and are inhabited; they are occupied by
lower-income residents and do not appear to be well kept.> These
"cite" would generally consist of two rows of wooden houses built on
either side of a main road.<(109) Rufus Jones, p. 14.> (See Figures 6
& 7.) The construction of these "cite" outside of a destroyed
town also began to be used as a technique to house workers brought in to
undertake the reconstruction of the town. They became so popular, in fact, that
by the early 1920's there were "long avenues of barracks" located in
Soissons, Rheims, Verdun and other areas of Northern France which became nearly
as noticeable as the devastated towns themselves.<(110) Rolf William Bauham,
"Why Rebuild War Wasted France?," The New York Times, March 5, 1922,
Section III, 14:1.>
Demountable wooden houses were originally imported
from Britain and transported to the work sites by a combination of rail and
truck transport. After the Armistice, however, when these barracks needed to be
constructed at a much quicker rate, two factories were established at Dole and
Ornans in France to produce the prefabricated parts. (See Figures 9 & 10.)
Laborers also began to organize themselves along the lines of an assembly line
in order to construct the units more efficiently: two men set the concrete
foundation; then two squads of three men laid the wood joists and installed the
floors, walls and the roof; and, finally, French carpenters would take over and
do the interior finishings.<(111) Weisbord, pp. 13-19.> (See Figure 11.)
With the German surrender and the signing of the
Armistice the AFSC concentrated their efforts on rebuilding the Verdun area
which had seen the greatest devastation of the war with 95% of all its
buildings destroyed. The Friends developed two programs to help the area
recover more quickly and further their belief in the need to rebuild society at
large. Their first move was to purchase five army dumps at a cost of $50,000
from the United States Government. This alleviated many of the United States
Army's problems with black marketeers and converted war supplies to peaceful
uses. The AFSC planned to use whatever materials it could for the rebuilding
effort and sell the rest for a small fee to French peasants and put the profits
back into the relief effort. The dumps contained tools, machinery, barbed wire,
railroad track, lumber, cement mixers, etc. The other post-war reconstruction
scheme developed by the Friends was the use of German prisoners for labor to
clear the dumps; the French first objected to this idea but later agreed on the
provision that none would be allowed to escape and that they could not be paid
a wage. Although the AFSC agreed to the conditions imposed by the French, they
kept track of all the hours worked by each German and when the work of clearing
the dumps was finished went to Germany, found each man's family and delivered
his wages with a photo and a letter from him.<(112) Ibid., pp. 19-21.
All German prisoners of war were released in early
February, 1920 although many Germans returned as paid laborers in accord with
part of the reparations agreement made with France. This was an unpopular
policy in France even though the French were desperately in need of workers;
many French nationals found it morally objectionable that Germans who had
destroyed their country and stolen their machinery should be compensated for
its reconstruction.>
The AFSC left France in 1920 but remained in Europe
until 1924 and sent units to Russia, Germany, Poland and Austria where they
mostly undertook civilian relief, planting of fruit trees and setting up
feeding centers for children. The American Friends Service Committee was,
however, not disbanded, and the Quakers created a permanent Foreign Relief
Section in 1925 as another of the organizations under the umbrella of the
Society of Friends.<(113) Mary Hoxie Jones, pp. 128-33.
Although the Society of Friends still mobilizes to
respond to foreign disasters and sends foreign aid and relief packages abroad,
only a small international program still exists today as a remnant of the
original Foreign Relief Section.> In France, the AFSC helped to restore
1,600 villages and house 46,000 families from a budget of $13,000,000 which was
raised privately by the Quaker organization.
The work of the American Friends Service Committee in
France was the exact effort Patrick Geddes hoped would help rebuild Europe
after the war; he held their efforts up as an example of how to create a
lasting peace from the war and rebuild not just the physical damage but the
spiritual health of the population as well. The Friends did not discriminate
against the Germans or the Austrians and hoped that through their efforts a
genuine sense of cooperation could be established for all men. They expressed a
concern for the needs of all mankind which might remind others of their
individual social responsibility and, in turn, help prevent the development of
new violence in the aftermath of this war. No matter how significant or wise
their effort was, the contribution of the AFSC paled in comparison to, for
instance, the over $5.2 billion Herbert Hoover's American Relief Administration
provided from 1919-1923. Nor could such efforts ever compete with the
aggressive nature of imperialism, markets and politics which had made the First
World War, and would make any other such conflicts, inevitable.
CHAPTER VIII
Reconstruction in Belgium
Efforts by Belgian architects and planners to rebuild
Belgium along modern lines were largely unsuccessful. Due to weak centralized planning
authority and a keen desire on the part of the Belgian people to rebuild the
history and values willfully destroyed by the Germans out of frustration
because they could not successfully capture their towns, reconstruction in
Belgium for the most part only saw the reinstitution of traditional town
planning schemes and architectural expression. Most Belgian authorities and
town planning practitioners did, however, spend the war in France or Britain in
exile and helped to transfer modern notions of city planning to Belgium and
further the international relationships of the profession. In addition, the
modern notions advocated by progressives in the post-World War I reconstruction
unequivocally formed the basis for Belgium's post-World War II reconstruction.
When it was recognized that the efforts to reinstitute traditional values in
lieu of modernization in the post-World War I reconstruction could not protect
Belgians from similar devastation at the hands of the Germans some twenty-five
years later, the Belgians called for a new tradition which broke from the past
at the close of World War II.<(114) Pieter Uyttenhove, "Continuities in
Belgian Wartime Reconstruction Planning," Rebuilding Europe's Bombed
Cities, ed. Jeffry Diefendorf, pp. 49-58.>
"Destruction was perceived by the Belgians as a
nation," in a similar fashion as the population of Northern France,
"in order to erase its culture."<(115) Ibid., p. 53.>
Approximately 100,000 buildings were completely destroyed or damaged beyond
repair; all rail lines, sanitation, industrial complexes and roads in the
western part of the country were decimated and Walloon cities such as Liege,
Louvain and Ypres, with traditions of civic determination or world-renown
universities, suffered much greater damage than that of the Flemish-speaking
cities.<(116) Patrick Geddes and Gilbert Slater, The Making of the Future:
Ideas at War, pp. 178-79.> Material damage was estimated at a value of $2
billion. In addition, some 6,100 civilians were assassinated by the Germans outside
of military engagements.
During the war, the government was in exile in Le
Havre, as was the town planner Raphael Verwilhgen, who became Minister for the
Devastated Regions after the war. There was no parliament and all laws were
enacted by right of ministerial decree, not passed by any legislative body.
Louis van der Swaelmen, who founded the Comite Neerlando- Belge d'Art during
the war, while writing on the meaning of the reconstruction for Belgian
monuments and towns, prepared the first book in French on town planning theory,
which he wrote in collaboration with the Dutch. Those architects and town
planners who spent the war in Britain were introduced to the ideas of the
Garden City Movement by British town planners who wanted to contribute to the reconstruction
and spread the garden city idea as up-to-date planning. A number of conferences
and meetings were organized by the British for this purpose beginning in
February, 1915. Belgian practitioners who spent the duration of the war in
Paris were involved in French efforts to modernize town planning practice; a
Belgian town planner was, in fact, asked to direct the newly created Ecole
Superieure d'Art Publique established to serve as a documentation centre and
give courses in town planning practice at the close of the war.<(117)
Uyttenhove, pp. 49-50.>
The Belgians established many professional contacts
during the war and helped to further legitimize town planning practice at its
close through their efforts to define the requirements of Belgian town planning
and reconstruction. The war provided the impetus for Belgians to go abroad in a
literal sense-- to flee from the danger and as an academic endeavor in order to
make study of the progress of the practice of town planning and the skills it
embodied as distinct from the Belgian tradition of city building. The
burgeoning profession of town planning in Belgium became aware of its
opportunity to modernize devastated Belgian cities and replan more efficient
and sanitary cities without the pre-war problems of congestion, inefficient
transportation and unhealthful conditions which plagued the pre-war city.
Van der Swaelmen had distinct opinions about the need
for Belgian cities to become more modern and better functioning; he also
understood the dilemma in the context of planning for Belgium's historic
cities. He realized there was somewhat of a dichotomy between experiences, but
he felt certain that they could retain their character with greater efficiency.
Van der Swaelmen was also the first Belgian practitioner to raise the
philosophical issue of how to reconstruct the devastated monuments and historic
buildings of the destroyed towns. He arduously claimed that Belgians would, in
the long run, get no false comfort from the reconstruction and that monuments needed
to show their age and experience-- claiming that modern replicas could not
bring back the charms of the past or erase the memories of the war. He proposed
that constructive parts of a structure could be rebuilt, but that anything
handcrafted, such as a statue, would either have to be left blank or replaced
by a modern original. These ideas translated for van der Swaelmen to an entire
town; he felt old dwellings which were completely demolished could be rebuilt
in the modern spirit which had evolved from the traditions of the past without
borrowing the old style. From van der Swaelman's point of view the challenge
was to find a way to reconstruct Belgian towns with improved efficiency and
modern conveniences while retaining the same charm and general character of the
towns before the war; one had also to try and reinstitute the traditional
patterns of Belgian development within the requirements of modern business and
industry and residential living.<(118) , "'Towns of Belgium Rising From
the Flames: Art at Home and Abroad'," The New York Times, Aug. 19, 1917,
Section VI, 12:1.>
When van der Swaelmen first began to write about the
requirements of the reconstruction as he viewed them, his opinions were
somewhat out of place. The Belgians, as expressed equally as vehemently by the
French over their cathedral at Rheims, wanted at first to create a monument to
the dead and the barbarous nature of the Germans with the ruins of such famous
monuments as the Cloth Hall at Ypres for example. The most famous monument in
the historic city, the Cloth Hall began construction in the thirteenth century
for the great cloth fairs and trading exhibitions which passed through Belgium.
When the town came under attack by the Germans at the beginning of the war, it
was besieged and soon lay in complete ruin. (See Figures 1, 2 & 3.) This
outcry to preserve many of these ruins, like the Cloth Hall, in-situ, were most
popular immediately at the close of the war but soon translated, much more
vigorously then they did in France, into an aggressive force against
modernization and for a sensitive reconstruction which rebuilt not only the
character of a city but its image as well. In some instances, in fact, the
reconstruction was taken as an opportunity to make a city look more harmonious
and picturesque then it did before the war by, for instance, rebuilding town
house rows in the style of the most notable monument in a town. Only a few
curiosities from the war such as the trenches near Nieuport and Dixmude on the
Yser River were actually preserved in-situ.<(119) Emile Cammaerts, "The
Reconstruction of Belgian Towns," Journal of the Royal Society of Arts,
Vol. LXXIII, Nu. 3779 (24 April 1925), p. 539-41.>
Even before the Armistice many Belgian towns started
to rebuild. In the devastated town of Louvain, for instance, only the
university and its famous library still lay in ruins by the end of the summer
of 1919, less than a year after the Armistice was signed.<(120) , "Slow
Reparations Vex the Belgians," The New York Times, Aug. 24, 1919, 7:1.>
Towns like Louvain, for the most part, were not interested in modernization but
merely wanted to regain their identity. Such work also helped set the tone for
the larger, more coordinated government policies and legislative requirements
which guided the overall reconstruction and all town planning practice in the
post-World War I era. Further, the traditionally conservative city governments
and city institutions felt any attempts toward government-wide instituted
modernization would undermine their authority and usurp their power, in part
because it would change the traditional patterns of urban land distribution.
Consequently, the isolated attempts at reconstruction fostered by the German
occupation of Belgium were adopted as a national policy for reconstruction with
only minor intervention after the war.<(121) Uyttenhove, p. 50-56.>
The only politically acceptable deviation from this
policy concerned ensuring that new slums were not rebuilt where they had been
destroyed by the Germans. This goal, which was outlined in reconstruction law
enacted in April, 1919, along with some modern construction techniques, was the
only deviation by the national government from a policy set against
modernization.<(122) Ibid., pp. 49-50.> Most notably a small number of
garden cities were built on the outskirts of reconstructed towns, like Ypres,
as a result and only concerned houses which were of no particular architectural
significance.<(123) Cammaerts, p. 541.> The construction of these garden
city neighborhoods was nearly the only opportunity town planners such as
Verwilghen, who had spent so much of their time and effort studying town
planning principles abroad, saw realized. Unlike France, where many
organizations and individuals from abroad participated in the reconstruction
most of the reconstruction in Belgium, with the exception of some financing,
was undertaken without direct outside intervention. Consequently, the Belgians
were under no direct influence from outside experts to adopt their viewpoints
and found it quite simple to contain Belgian practitioners who returned after
the war and wanted to participate in the reconstruction.
Any discussions concerning the Cloth Hall at the
close of the war notwithstanding, the city of Ypres was faithfully
reconstructed. Even the reconstruction of the Cloth Hall, which did undergo
further debate as the city was being rebuilt, was only a matter of the great
expense it would cost to reconstruct the monument. It was eventually rebuilt as
the town which had gone from a pre-war population of 18,000 to not having a
single inhabitant at the end of 1918 and only 2,000 inhabitants at the close of
1919 slowly began to reconstruct and repopulate. (See Figures 4, 5 & 6.) In
the tradition of Belgian reconstruction, the town was being faithfully
"transformed" back to its pre-war state which would not even give off
a memory of the war, as if it had never existed both for the present day and
future generations. (See Figures 7 & 8.) The undesirable working class
areas of the city were rebuilt only to meet the needs of industrial production
in the town. As to the government's concern over rebuilding slum areas which
had existed before the war, two solutions were designed for Ypres: one, the
construction of semi- permanent dwellings of wood and brick; and, two, the
construction of a small garden city adjacent to the city.<(124) G. Topham
Forrest, "The Rebuilding of Ypres," Journal of the Royal Institute of
British Architects, Vol. 31, Nu. 3 (8 Dec. 1923), pp. 64-70.> (See Figure
9.) The typical garden city solution allowed for some modernization but did not
remake the traditional patterns of land ownership or attachments of the
population to their city, how it worked or how it was generally used.
The reconstruction of the university library at Louvain
is the only significant deviation from the reconstruction efforts undertaken in
Belgium and was quite out of the ordinary in its own right. Not only was the
reconstruction motivated by outside parties from the United States, it was also
the only international architectural commission ever awarded to the American
architect Whitney Warren of Warren and Wetmore and at a time when international
architectural commissions were not commonplace. Warren actually rarely if ever
built outside of New York City. Undoubtedly, his participation came as a result
of a relationship with industrialists and philanthropists such as J.P. Morgan
who organized to provide aid for the reconstruction of Northern Europe during
the war and at its conclusion. The library at the University of Louvain, the
only structure not yet reconstructed in the city less then a year after the
Armistice, was just the type of high profile project which was easy and
uncomplicated for such individuals to fund, especially in a country which had
not solicited such aid or much civilian relief prior. (See Figures 10, 11 &
12.) The relief work of Wetmore's wife in France during the war may have
established a relationship for her husband to Morgan and others. It can only be
supposed that such a unique effort by Americans in Belgium was only undertaken
as a token of their interest in Belgium and a representation of the liquidity
of American industry.
Reconstruction efforts in Belgium were unlike those
in France, although both had undergone a similar physical, industrial and moral
devastation. The Belgians were, however, in essence banished from their own
country and had no effective self-rule until the German retreat.<(125)
Uyttenhove, p. 52.> A certain internationalism resulted as a course of the war
and practitioners took the opportunity to establish relationships with English,
French and Dutch town planners and transfer techniques of town planning back to
Belgium and influence planning practice taking place in other countries as
well. Although most of the ideas concerning town planning practice and
preservation advocated by progressive Belgian planners did not take root for
the post-World War I reconstruction, they were undeniably the impetus behind
the policies of modernization and monument preservation advocated in the
post-World War II reconstruction.
Belgian efforts to repair the damage caused by World
War I hoped to erase all memories of the war and rebuild what they had lost
with as little disruption as possible. This policy, however acceptable to heal
the wounds of war, did not attempt to uncover its causes. It was as unfair of
post-World War II authorities to blame the devastation of the Second World War
on the built environment as it was ill- conceived of them to believe that life
could return exactly to the way it was before the First World War if they could
make it appear as if it had never taken place. Such a policy of not modernizing
their cities could not ultimately eliminate the aggressive tendencies of
Germany, imperialism, the economic impact of the Armistice or a post-World War
I population which found itself living in a displaced moment in time.
CHAPTER IX
Conclusion
World War I had a dynamic effect on the emerging
twentieth century. The aggressions, relationships and military might of the
dominant world powers reacted to one another based upon the interactions and
consequences of the war and its aftermath. To what extent the actual decisions
made about how most appropriately to rebuild the physical devastation and the
meaning of these decisions affected the impact of the war as a whole are
uncertain. The war did, however, unquestionably educate urban designers and
city planning practitioners from the 1930's onward about the meaning of
wholesale land clearance and rebuilding to remake the way in which people
lived. This opportunity was seized upon by professionals in the post-World War
II reconstruction and in the practice of urban renewal in America in the same
era when building techniques and the large-scale coordination demanded by such
an effort coincided with a society that seemed ripe for a break with the past.
It is a tenuous question to ask who is best able to
make the decisions about how and in what way to undertake such a reconstruction
as was pursued after World War I. Although governments typically must guide
such an effort, their alliances frequently were the cause of the conflict in
the first place. An outside expert may have the technical ability and skills
necessary to complete such a task, but it is not for an outsider to impose
his/her beliefs upon such a place. The population, as well, generally does not
possess the independent knowledge to understand the consequences of certain
decisions upon the future growth, livability or productive capacity of a place.
No one group, it seems, contains the appropriate ability to pursue such a
fundamental rebuilding; each group is vested with a certain right of
information and authority or skill not inherent to another.
Although a few practitioners such as Patrick Geddes
and Louis van der Swaelmen offered debate about the meaning of the built
environment, such notions were generally disregarded by the authorities who
guided the reconstruction. Whether or not these places would have had any
authenticity for van der Swaelmen, their imagery had a distinct value for
post-war culture. Ultimately, these places could not erase the memory of the
war even though it seems from an objective point of view that they should not
have even tried. If there is no evidence for future generations to learn about
the meaning of the past and present-day relationships what good can come from
such devastation?
What best can heal a population, a people or a
generation may be unclear and not ultimately provide the best environment from
which to go forward. Are any of these values powers invested in the built
environment central to its meaning or merely a representation of personal
memory? How in fact do we feel outside the arena of war; do we excuse people
rebuilding their perceptions of place when another willfully took it from them
but not in the case of natural or man-made disasters such as earthquakes or
fires?
In the United States the historic preservation
movement was born out of the shock of the wholesale demolition of large tracts
of urban land demolished under the program of urban renewal; historic
preservation and urban planning have not yet come to an understanding which
would allow for a productive relationship of authority. Preservationists must
turn from merely trying to protect a building from demolition to a more
cohesive understanding of managing a city as a living organism with a past and
a future. City planners as well should stop viewing their alternative course as
one which seeks to tear cities down. Only slowly have American cities come to
realize that the program of urban renewal imposed upon them demands just as
much serious consideration and collective action as the post-war
reconstructions in Europe.
Progressively more horrific armed conflicts have
occurred throughout the twentieth century. It has allowed technology to
transform itself from a tool which can improve the quality of human life and
daily living to something dangerous and unleashed in times of conflict. Without
excusing the devastation of internal armed warfare around the world, a
generation sits in wait and must assume political authorities in our day and
age understand that there is no longer room for debate about the meaning of
reconstruction-- true war now no longer leaves anything, or most likely even
anyone, from which to rebuild.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Abercrombie, Patrick. Greater London Plan 1944.
London: His Majesty?s Stationary Office, 1945.
American Defense Society. The Crimes of Germany. New
York: The Society, 1918.
Ashworth, Gregory John. War and the City. London and
New York: Routledge, 1991.
Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First
Machine Age. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980.
Barnett, Jonathon. The Elusive City. New York: Harper
& Row, Publishers, 1986.
Bayer, Herbert. Bauhaus, 1919-1928. New York: The Museum
of Modern Art, 1975.
Bell, Edward Price. Europe's Economic Sunrise: A
Survey of the Constructive Forces Contributing to its "Spirit of the
Morning". Chicago: The Chicago Daily News, 1927.
Boardman, Philip. Patrick Geddes, Maker of the
Future. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1944.
Boardman, Philip. The Worlds of Patrick Geddes.
Biologist, Town Planner, Re- Educator, Peace-Warrior. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1978.
Branford, Victor and Patrick Geddes. Our Social
Inheritance. London: Williams & Norgate, 1919.
Cherry, Gordon E. (ed.). Shaping an Urban World. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1980.
Ciucci, Georgio (ed.). The American City: From the
Civil War to the New Deal. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c.1979.
Diefendorf, Jeffry M. In the Wake of War; The
Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Diefendorf, Jeffry M. (ed.). Rebuilding Europe's
Bombed Cit ies. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1990.
Evenson, Norma. Paris: A Century of Change,
1878-1978. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
Fleure, Herebert John. The Regional Survey Prepatory
to Town Planning. London: Town Planning Institute, 1918.
Fliche, Augustine. Louvain. Paris: H. Laurens, 1921.
Ford, George. Out of the Ruins. NY: Century Co., 1919.
Garvin, J.L. The Economic Foundations of Peace; or,
World- Partnership as the Truer Basis of the League of Nations. London:
Macmillan, 1919.
Geddes, Patrick. Cities in Evolution. London:
Williams & Norgate, 1949.
Geddes, Patrick and Gilbert Slater. The Making of the
Future: Ideas at War. London: Williams and Norgate, 1917.
Goodrich, Ernest Payson. Report of Suggested Plan of
Procedure for City Plan Commission, City of New Jersey, New Jersey. Jersey
City: The Jersey City Printing Company, 1913.
Grand, Michel Le. Reims. Grenoble: B. Arthaud, 1932.
Guaranty Trust Company of New York. The Solvency of
the Allies; Great Britain- France-Belgium-Italy. New York: Guaranty Trust
Company of New York, c.1919.
Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow. Oxford: Blackwell,
1988.
Hobson, J.A. Problems of a New World. London: GT.
Allen & Unwin ltd., 1921.
Hughes, Robert. The Shock of the New: Art and the
Century of Change. London: Thames and Hudson, 1991.
Jablonski, Edward. A Pictoral History of the World
War I Years. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, c.1979.
Jones, Lester M. Quakers in Action. Recent
Humanitarian and Reform Activities of the American Quakers. NY: The Macmillan
Company, 1929.
Jones, Mary Hoxie. Swords Into Ploughshares: An
Account of the American Friends Service Committee, 1917-1937. NY: The Macmillan
Company, 1937.
Jones, Rufus M. A Service of Love in Wartime.
American Friends Relief Work in Europe, 1917-1919. NY: The Macmillan Company,
1920.
Kennett, Lee B. The First Air War, 1914-1918. New
York: Free Press, 1991.
Kennett, Lee B. A History of Strategic Bombing. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982.
Kostof, Spiro. The City Assembled; The Elements of
Urban Form Through History. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1992.
Kostof, Spiro. The City Shaped; Urban Patterns and
Meanings Through History. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1991.
Kraus, Hertha. International Relief in Action,
1914-1943. Scottdal, PA: The Herald Press, 1944.
Lane, Barbara Miller. Architecture and Politics in
Germany, 1918-1945. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Marsh, Benjamin Clarke. Introduction to City
Planning: Democracy's Challenge to the American City. New York, c.1909.
Meral, Jean. Paris in American Literature. Chapel
Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989.
Norman, Aaron. The Great Air War. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1968.
Perla, Leo. What is "National Honor"? The
Challenge of the Reconstruction. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1918.
. Resurgam: La Reconstruction en Belgique apres 1914.
Bruxelles: Credit Communal, 1985.
Rubin, William S. Dada, Surrealism, and Their
Heritage. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1977.
Taittinger, Jean. La Vie d'une Cite Reims au Cours
des Siecles. Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1970.
Talese, Gay. Unto the Sons. New York: Ivy Books,
1992.
Townsend, Charles Harrison. Beautiful Buildings in
France & Belgium, Including Many Which Have Been Destroyed During the War.
London: T.F. Unwin ltd., 1916.
Toynbee, Arnold J. The New Europe: Some Essays in
Reconstruction. London: J.M. Dent & New York: Dutton, 19 16.
Uyttenhove, Pieter. De Wederopbouw van Leuven na
1914. Belgium: Univeristaire Pers Leuven, 1991.
Vanderlip, Frank A. What Happened to Europe. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1919.
Virilio, Paul and Sylvere Lotinger. Pure War. New
York: Semiotext, Inc., 1983.
Ward, Davis and Olivier Zunz (eds.). The Landscape of
Modernity: Essays on New York City, 1900-1940. NY: Russel Sage Foundation,
1992.
Weisbord, Marvin R. Some Form of Peace. True Stories
of the American Friends Service Committee at Home and Abroad. NY: The Viking
Press, 1968.
Windstaff, W.W. Lower than Angels: A Memoir of War
and Peace. Maryland: Enigma Books, 1993.
Winter, J.M. The Experience of World War I. London:
Macmillan, 1988.
Periodicals
Abercrombie, Patrick. "The Basis of
Reconstruction. The Need for a Regional Survey of National Resources," The
Town Planning Review, Vol. 7, Nu. 3-4 (March, 1918), pp. 203-10.
Abercrombie, Patrick. "The First International
Congress of Town Planning and Organization of City Life," The Town
Planning Review, Vol. 4, Nu. 3 (Oct., 1913), pp. 205-18.
Abercrombie, Patrick. "International
Contributions to the Study of Town Planning and City Organization," The
Town Planning Review, Vol. 4, Nu. 2 (July, 1913), pp. 98-117.
. "Aid for Stricken Churches," The New York
Times, April 3, 1919, 19:3.
. "American Methods to Rebuild France," The
New York Times, Aug. 19, 1923, Section II, 1:3.
. "American Students to Help France Build,"
The New York Times, March 30, 1921, 32:3.
. "Americans Engage to Rebuild Nancy," The
New York Times, July 2, 1919, 1:3.
. "Americans to Rebuild Ruined French
Cities," The New York Times, April 13, 1917, 6:4.
. "Architects Design New Homes for Ruined Lands.
Competition Under French Government Auspices Produces Hundreds of Artistic
Plans for Rebuilding of Devastated Northern France," The New York Times,
March 3, 1918, Section VII, 7:1.
. "Atelier and Exhibition for Belgian
Architects," The Town Planning Review, Vol. 5, Nu. 4 (Jan., 1915), p. 231.
Bauham, Rolf William. "Why Rebuild War Wasted
France?," The New York Times, March 5, 1922, Section III, 14:1.
Berrington, Adrian. "The Paris
Competition," The Town Planning Review, Vol. 8, Nu. 3-4 (Dec., 1920), pp.
163-66.
. "Big Exhibit Here on City Planning," The
New York Times, Aug. 31, 1924, Section IX, 1:8.
. "Bombarding Rheims Cathedral," The New
York Times, April 28, 1917, 12:5.
. "British Reconstruction," The New York
Times, Jan. 9, 1919, 3:6.
. "Calls Skyscrapers Poor Investments," The
New York Times, Aug. 6, 1915, 11:5.
Cammaerts, Emile. "The Reconstruction of Belgian
Towns," Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol. LXXIII, Nu. 3779 (24
April 1925), pp. 538-48.
Chenery, William L. "American Rebuilder of Martyred
Rheims," The New York Times, July 11, 1920, Section III, 5:1.
Cherry, Gordon. "The Housing, Town Planning Etc.
Act, 1919," The Planner, Vol. 60, Nu. 5 (May, 1974), pp. 681-84.
. "Civic Surveys in War Time," The Town
Planning Review, Vol. 5, Nu. 3 (Oct., 1914), p. 247.
. "Civic Surveys in War Time," The Town
Planning Review, Vol. 5, Nu. 4 (Jan., 1915), pp. 231-33.
. "Destruction By War Nearly Six Billions,"
The New York Times, Jan. 26, 1917, 10:3.
. "85,000 Destroyed Houses Rebuilt," The
New York Times, Jan. 6, 1924, Section VIII, 2:2.
. "For a Pantheon at Rheims," The New York
Times, June 18, 1917, 4:3.
. "For the Town of Ham," The New York
Times, Nov. 10, 1918, Section III, 7:3.
Ford, George B. "Digging Deeper into City
Planning," American City, Vol. 6 (March, 1912), pp. 557-62.
Ford, George B. "Summary of Damage to France in
War," The New York Times, Jan. 26, 1919, Section III, 6:1.
Forrest, G. Topham. "The Rebuilding of
Ypres," The Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Vol. 31,
Nu. 3 (8 Dec. 1923), pp. 61-77.
. "French Aid Society Split," The New York
Times, March 20, 1918, 12:7.
. "French Church Needs," The New York
Times, May 11, 1919, Section II, 2:4.
. "French Lands Restored," The New York
Times, July 13, 1925, 11:2.
. "French Village Rebuilt," The New York
Times, Sept. 15, 1923, 17:6.
. "Garden Cities for France," The New York
Times, July 10, 1917, 3:7.
. "Garden City versus Town Planning Act,"
The Town Planning Review, Vol. 5, Nu. 2 (July, 1914), pp. 176-77.
Geddes, Patrick. "Two Steps in Civics: 'Cities
and Town Planning Exhibition' and the 'International Congress of Cities',"
The Town Planning Review, Vol. 4, Nu. 2 (July, 1913), pp. 78-94.
. "George Burdett Ford 1879-1930,"
Architectural Forum, Vol. 53 (Nov., 1930), p. 33.
. "Great Work of Reconstituting France.
Co-operative System the Basis of Efforts to Repair the Fifteen Billion Dollars'
Worth of Material Damage Done by the Invading Germans," The New York
Times, June 22, 1919, Section IV, 8:1. Holliday, A.C. "The Rebuilding of
Rheims," The Town Planning Review, Vol. 9, Nu. 1 (March, 1921), pp. 5-11.
. "An International Association of Garden
Cities," The Town Planning Review, Vol. 5, Nu. 2 (July, 1914), p. 176.
Kostof, Spiro. "His Majest the Pick: The Aesthetics of Demolition,"
Design Quarterly, Nu. 118-19 (1982), pp. 32- 41.
Lafontaine, H.P. Cart de. "The Work of 'La
Renaissance des Cities'," The Town Planning Review, Vol. 9, Nu. 1 (March,
1921), pp. 1-4.
Lanchester, H.V. "The Civic Survey as a War
Measure," The Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Vol.
22 (9 Jan. 1915), pp. 107-10.
Minett, John. "The Housing, Town Planning Etc.
Act, 1909," The Planner, Vol. 60, Nu. 5 (May, 1974), pp. 676-80.
. "The New Ypres," The New York Times, Aug.
10, 1924, Section II, 4:4.
. "Obituary. Professor Sir Patrick Geddes,"
Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Vol. 39, Nu. 15 (4 June
1932), p. 630.
. "Oppose Ypres Restoration," The New York
Times, Dec. 16, 1919, 18:4.
. "Plan of Paris," The Town Planning
Review, Vol. 8, Nu. 2 (April, 1920), p. 125.
. "Rebuilding Louvain University," The
Architects Journal, Vol. LII, Nu. 1354 (15 Dec. 1920), pp. 647-48.
. "Reconstruction in France," The New York
Times, Aug. 6, 1922, Section III, 15:2.
. "Replanning Belgium," The Town Planning
Review, Vol. 5, Nu. 4 (Jan., 1915), pp. 257-59.
. "Rheims Cathedral May Fall," The New York
Times, May 5, 1917, 3:5.
. "Rheims Not to Be 'Restored'," The New
York Times, July 20, 1922, 16:5.
. "Rheims Ruin Growing," The New York
Times, May 3, 1917, 24:2.
. "Rheims Seeks a Loan," The New York
Times, Feb. 19, 1921, 17:3.
. "Say French Use Rheims Cathedral," The
New York Times, April 26, 1917, 24:1.
. "65,000 Shells Hit Rheims," The New York
Times, April 21, 1917, 2:8. . "Slow Reparations Vex the Belgians,"
The New York Times, Aug. 24, 1919, 7:1.
. "Teaching Town Planning," The New York
Times, Aug. 4, 1918, Section VI, 14:3.
. "Thanks From France," The New York Times,
Jan. 13, 1925, 18:6.
. "To Rebuild the Library at Louvain,"
Architecture, Vol. XLV, Nu. 3 (March, 1922), pp. 73-78.
. "'Towns of Belgium Rising from the Flames: Art
at Home and Abroad'," The New York Times, Aug. 19, 1917, Section VI, 12:1.
. "Unpractical City Planning," The New York
Times, April 11, 1911, 7:1.
. "Urges Peace Preparation," The New York
Times, Sept. 28, 1918, 11:2.
. "Vitrimont Now Restored," The New York
Times, Jan. 24, 1920, 8:8.
Wallis, Richard P. "The Building Situation of
Today," Architecture, Vol. 39 (1919), pp. 169-99.
Weiss, Marc A. "Skyscraper Zoning: New York's
Pioneering Role," Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58,
Nu. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 201-12.
. "Will Aid to Rebuild Shattered France,"
The New York Times, Aug. 5, 1916, 3:7.
Williams, Wythe. "Rheims Edifice Likely to
Fall," The New York Times, May 15, 1917, 3:2. Wolf, Peter. "The First
Modern Urbanist," Architectural Forum, Vol. 127, Nu. 3 (Oct., 1967), pp.
50-55.
. "Won't Repair Ypres Ruins," The New York
Times, Sept. 28, 1919, Section II, 5:2.
. "Would Restore French Art," The New York
Times, April 7, 1917, 11:2.
Papers/Pamphlets
Earlham School of Religion and Quaker Hill Conference
Center. Consultation on Quaker Service. Richmond, Indiana: Quaker Hill
Conference Center, Dec. 11-14, 1980.
Friends Service Council. The Past is Prologue:
1868-1968, 100 Years of Quaker Overseas Work. London:
Friends Service Council, 1968. Geddes, Patrick. Two
Steps in Civics: "Cities & Town Planning Exhibition" and the
"International Congress of Cities", Ghent International Exhibition,
1913.
Jones, Rufus M. The American Friends in France,
1917-1919. Russell Sage Foundation, 1943.
Pickett, Clarence E. Problems Involved in
Administering Relief Abroad. Russell Sage Foundation, 1943.
Lectures
Cherry, Gordon. "The Turn-of-the-Century Origins
of Town Planning: A New Look at the Evidence from Great Britain," Fifth
National Conference on American Planning History. Chicago Historical Society,
Chicago, IL, 18-21 Nov. 1993.
Phillips, William R.F. "American and British City
Planning and the 'German Example' at the Turn of the Century," Fifth
National Conference on American Planning History. Chicago Historical Society,
Chicago, IL, 18-21 Nov. 1993.
Created:
Monday, December 08, 1997, 17:23 Last Updated: Monday, December 08, 1997, 17:23
------------
World War 1: The Cost of War WWI
Updated
on August 11, 2014
The Human Cost of War
From the first gunshot fired in
anger in 1914 to the 11th hour of the 11th day on the 11th month in 1918, the
Great War took its toll on human life. Of the 65 million men who fought in
World War 1:
·
8 million men were killed in battle.
·
2 million died of illness and disease.
·
21.2 million were wounded.
·
7.8 million were taken prisoner or went missing in action.
In every nation that took part
in the combat, there were few families who hadn't lost a relative in the war–a
brother, a son, a father, a nephew, or an uncle. Some towns and villages lost
every single one of their male members of fighting age. And if that village lay
in the vicinity of soldiers or bombers, many others were killed as well.
·
6.8 million civilians were killed during WWI.
The Financial Cost of War
The First World War took its
toll on the whole of the European economy, leaving Europe on its knees,
financially.
Many industries that once
thrived during peacetime had been retooled for war production. When the war was
over, governments didn't help factories retool or recalibrate for what they
used to produce, thereby pushing many industries and factories into financial
ruin.
Also, due to the high toll of
death and injury, many villages lost all their skilled tradesman such as
printers, smiths, and carpenters, trades that took a long time to learn.
Because recovery required these skills, the infrastructures of villages were
crippled and ruined in many rural areas.
The estimated costs for WWI for
each participating nation are listed below (in US dollars):
United States: $22,625,253,000
Great Britain: $35,334,012,000
France: $24,265,583,000
Russia: $22,293,950,000
Italy: $12,413,998,000
Belgium: $1,154,468,000
Romania: $1,600,000,000
Japan: $40,000,000
Serbia: $399,400,000
Greece: $270,000,000
Canada: $1,665,576,000
Australia: $1,423,208,000
New Zealand: $378,750,000
India: $601,279,000
South Africa: $300,000,000
British Colonies: $125,000,000
Germany: $37,775,000,000
Austria-Hungary:
$20,622,960,000
Turkey: $1,430,000,000
Bulgaria: $815,200,000
The After Cost of War
Years after the cease fire had
been signed, the financial costs of war continued. Disabled soldiers had to be
cared for and homes, factories, and infrastructure had to be rebuilt. Graves
had to be cared for and cemeteries had to be built for the soldiers who
perished. The bodies of soldiers who died in the war were removed from their
shallow graves at the trenches and taken home to be buried. War memorials were
built in every town, village, and city of soldiers who had perished in battle.
---------------
The Economics of World War I
"The total cost of World War I to the
United States (was) approximately $32 billion, or 52 percent of gross national
product at the time."
Did World War I produce a major economic break
from the past in the United States? Did the U.S. economy change in some
fundamental and lasting ways as a result of that war? NBER Research Associate
Hugh Rockoff addresses these questions in his recent study Until It's Over,
Over There: The U.S. Economy in World War I (NBER Working Paper No. 10580).
After surveying the U.S. mobilization and financing for the war, Rockoff
concludes that perhaps the greatest impact of World War I was a shift in the
landscape of ideas about economics and about the proper role of government in
economic activities.
When the war began, the U.S. economy was in
recession. But a 44-month economic boom ensued from 1914 to 1918, first as
Europeans began purchasing U.S. goods for the war and later as the United
States itself joined the battle. "The long period of U.S. neutrality made
the ultimate conversion of the economy to a wartime basis easier than it
otherwise would have been," writes Rockoff. "Real plant and equipment
were added, and because they were added in response to demands from other
countries already at war, they were added precisely in those sectors where they
would be needed once the U.S. entered the war."
Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive
U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war
goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military
and half a million to the government. Overall, unemployment declined from 7.9
percent to 1.4 percent in this period, in part because workers were drawn in to
new manufacturing jobs and because the military draft removed from many young
men from the civilian labor force.
Rockoff estimates the total cost of World War I
to the United States at approximately $32 billion, or 52 percent of gross
national product at the time. He breaks down the financing of the U.S. war
effort as follows: 22 percent in taxes, 58 percent through borrowings from the
public, and 20 percent in money creation. The War Revenue Act of 1917 taxed
"excess profits" -- profits exceeding an amount determined by the
rate of return on capital in a base period -- by some 20 to 60 percent, and the
tax rate on income starting at $50,000 rose from 1.5 percent in 1913-15 to more
than 18 percent in 1918. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo
crisscrossed the country peddling war bonds, even enlisting the help of
Hollywood stars and Boy Scouts. The prevalence of patriotic themes created
social pressure to purchase the "Liberty bonds" (and, after the
armistice, the "Victory bonds"), but in practice the new bondholders
did not make a tangible personal sacrifice in buying war bonds, since the
yields on the se debt instruments were comparable to those on standard
municipal bonds at the time. As Rockoff notes, "patriotic motives were not
sufficient to alter market prices of assets during the war."
As part of the war effort, the U.S. government
also attempted to guide economic activity via centralized price and production
controls administered by the War Industries Board, the Food Administration, and
the Fuel Administration. Rockoff judges that the overall impact of these
programs on reallocating resources was "rather small." Timing played
a role, since some of the agencies were only established once the United States
entered the war, and they took time to begin fulfilling their roles. Also,
management problems emerged. For example, the War Industries Board attempted to
create a "priorities system" for determining the order in which
producers would fill government contracts for industrial goods. Unfortunately,
all policymakers gave their order the highest rating ("A"). Leaders
then created several higher priority ratings (such as "A1"), with
much the same result. "Replacing price signals with priorities is not as
simple as it sounds," surmises Rockoff.
Finally, the author assesses the legacies of
World War I for the U.S. economy. When the war began, the United States was a
net debtor in international capital markets, but following the war the United
States began investing large amounts internationally, particularly Latin
America, thus "taking on the role traditionally played by Britain and
other European capital exporters." With Britain weakened after the war,
New York emerged "as London's equal if not her superior in the contest to
be the world's leading financial center."
In matters of economic ideology, Rockoff argues
that, although the U.S. government took on such an active role in economic
affairs during the war, this evolution did not ratchet up the government role
in peacetime. Subsequent increases in federal spending resulted mainly from
war-related matters (such as veterans' benefits), and the most of the wartime
regulatory agencies soon disappeared due to the efforts of conservative
politicians. Nevertheless, the successful wartime experience "increased
the confidence on the left that central planning was the best way to meet a
national crisis, certainly in wartime, and possibly in peacetime as well."
This view became increasingly important after the Democrats reached power
during the Great Depression. "Almost every government program undertaken
in the 1930s reflected a World War I precedent," explains Rockoff,
"and...many of the people brought in to manage New Deal agencies had
learned their craft in World War I." The author concludes that the scope
and speed of gove rnment expansion in the 1930s were likely greater because of
the impact of the war on the world view of new economic and political leaders,
who in turn inspired future generations of reformers. "For America, to sum
up," writes Rockoff, "the most important long-run impact of the war
may have been in the realm of ideas."
-- Carlos Lozada
==========
Financial Cost of the First World War
Allied Powers
|
Cost in Dollars in 1914-18
|
United States | 22,625,253,000 |
Great Britain | 35,334,012,000 |
France | 24,265,583,000 |
Russia | 22,293,950,000 |
Italy | 12,413,998,000 |
Belgium | 1,154,468,000 |
Romania | 1,600,000,000 |
Japan | 40,000,000 |
Serbia | 399,400,000 |
Greece | 270,000,000 |
Canada | 1,665,576,000 |
Australia | 1,423,208,000 |
New Zealand | 378,750,000 |
India | 601,279,000 |
South Africa | 300,000,000 |
British Colonies | 125,000,000 |
Others | 500,000,000 |
Total of all Costs | 125,690,477,000 |
Central Powers
|
Cost in Dollars in 1914-18
|
Germany | 37,775,000,000 |
Austria-Hungary | 20,622,960,000 |
Turkey | 1,430,000,000 |
Bulgaria | 815,200,000 |
Total of all Costs |
60,643,160,000 |
-----------------
What World War II Cost The United States
by Paul Calore
$288 Billion
(1940 dollars)
In terms of losses in human lives and material resources, World
War II was undeniably the most destructive military conflict to date. It was a
global-military conflict that saw 61 countries taking part in a war that lasted
from 1939 to 1945. The major participants were the Allied powers, specifically
the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, who were at war
with the Axis Coalition of Germany and Italy in the European Theater. And
concurrently in the Pacific Theater, the United States was engaged with the
Imperial forces of Japan.
Japan
The events leading up to the war can be traced back to 1937 when
Japan, seeking to extend her colonial realm and to secure vast raw material
reserves and natural resources such as ores and petroleum, launched a
full-scale invasion of mainland China. To force Japan to cease their hostility
against China, in May 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered an embargo
of all exports to Japan. Angered over this maneuver and now severely lacking in
critical resources to fuel its war effort, Japan turned its aggression on its
southern neighbors.
Nazi Germany
That same year, Nazi Germany, in
pursuing its own expansionist agenda, invaded Poland and over the next two
years continued its aggression by occupying Denmark, Norway, France, and then
Russia in 1941, with Italy now entering the war allied with the Germans.
Meanwhile, the Japanese army had invaded French-Indochina in 1940 and launched
near simultaneous assaults on Malaya, Viet Nam, Thailand, Hong Kong, the
Philippines and Wake Island. Their subsequent attack on the U.S. naval fleet
moored in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, with the loss of 2,403 lives, brought the U.S.
into the war in December of 1941.
Over the next four years, the
U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines engaged both the Japanese forces in the
Pacific while at the same time joining the Allied forces in Europe against
Adolph Hitler’s invading armies in Germany and Benito Mussolini’s fascist
regime in Italy.
End Of The War
Following the encirclement and fall of Berlin by the Soviet army
in April of 1945 and the resultant suicide of Hitler, Germany surrendered on
May 7th in Rheims, France. With the war over in Europe, the American forces now
focused on conducting an enormous invasion of the Japanese mainland in an
effort to bring the war in the Pacific to an end. On further reflection,
however, to prevent large numbers of U.S. casualties that would result from the
invasion, President Harry S. Truman ordered the use of a new atomic weapon
instead. The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and a
second bomb on the port city of Nagasaki three days later. On September 2, the
Japanese High Command formally surrendered aboard the battleship USS Missouri
in Tokyo Bay.
But what was the cost of the war to the United States? For some
people, the cost of the war is considered strictly in monetary terms. But there
was also another cost, one much more irreplaceable than money - the costs in
human lives.
Cost In Money And Lives
Monetarily, in 1940 dollars, the estimated cost was $288 Billion.
In 2007 dollars this would amount to approximately $5 Trillion.
In addition, the effects of the war on the U.S. economy were that it decisively
ended the depression and created a booming economic windfall. Because the
United States mainland was untouched by the war her economic wealth and
prosperity soared as she became the world leader in manufacturing, technology,
industry and agriculture.
In terms of the costs in American lives lost the following list
the final estimations:
- Army – 234,874
- Navy - 36, 958
- Marines - 19,733
- Coast Guard - 574
- Merchant Marines
- 9,521
Total American lives killed in action:
295,790
------
The second world war
Counting the cost
Two British historians analyse the 20th century’s worst
conflict
All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945. By Max Hastings. HarperPress; 748 pages; £30.
Buy from Amazon.co.uk
The Second World War.
By Antony Beevor. Little, Brown; 863 pages; $35. Weidenfeld & Nicolson;
£25. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk
In this section
· Counting
the cost
· Well
red
HISTORY is full of wars that
were bloodier than the second world war. As a proportion of the population,
more people were killed during the An Lushan rebellion in eighth-century China,
for example, or by the Thirty Years War in 17th-century central Europe. But the
sheer magnitude of the human tragedy of the second world war puts it in a class
of its own, and its relative closeness to the present day makes claims on the
collective memory that more remote horrors cannot.
The statistics of the war are
almost mind-numbing. Estimates differ, but up to 70m people died as a direct
consequence of the fighting between 1939 and 1945, about two-thirds of them
non-combatants, making it in absolute terms the deadliest conflict ever. Nearly
one in ten Germans died and 30% of their army. About 15m Chinese perished and
27m Soviets. Squeezed between two totalitarian neighbours, Poland lost 16% of
its population, about half of them Jews who were part of Hitler's final solution.
On average, nearly 30,000 people were being killed every day.
Partly because it is so hard to
grasp what these numbers mean, recent historians have tended to concentrate on
particular theatres or aspects of the war with an emphasis on trying to describe
what it was like for the human beings caught up in it. Both Antony Beevor and
Max Hastings are distinguished exemplars of this approach. Mr Hastings has
written books on Britain's strategic bombing campaign, the Allied invasion of
Normandy and the battles for Germany and Japan in the closing stages of the
war. With several books already under his belt, Mr Beevor became known in 1998
for his epic account of the siege of Stalingrad, and went on to produce
accounts of D-Day and the fall of Berlin. Now both writers have tried something
different: single-volume narrative histories of the entire war. In doing so,
they are following in the footsteps of Andrew Roberts and Michael Burleigh, who
made similar attempts in, respectively, 2009 and 2010.
Mr Hastings got there before Mr
Beevor. “All Hell Let Loose” was published seven months ago (it is now out in
paperback) to justifiably rave reviews. Mr Hastings's technique is to mine the
written record of those who took part both actively and passively. His
witnesses range from the men whose decisions sent millions to their deaths to
the ordinary soldiers who carried out their orders and the civilian victims who
found themselves on the receiving end. Cynicism and idealism, suffering and
euphoria, courage and terror, brutalisation and sentimentality—all find
expression through their own testimony. From the Burma Road to the Arctic
convoys, the killing fields of Kursk and the London Blitz, their voices are
heard. Mr Hastings's achievement in organising this unwieldy mass of material
into a narrative that sweeps confidently over every contested corner of the
globe is impressive.
Less so are some of his
judgments. Although delivered with verve and economy (Mr Hastings is, above
all, an accomplished journalist), they are often unfair. For example, he argues
that the decision by Britain and France to declare war because of the German
attack on Poland was an act of cynicism because they knew they could do nothing
to help the Poles. That was never in doubt, but the Allies hoped the stand
against Germany's naked aggression would persuade Hitler to step back from the
brink of all-out war, a motive that was neither base nor ridiculous.
Mr Hastings's repeated
admiration for the fighting qualities of German, Japanese and Soviet soldiers
compared with British and American forces is especially trying. Germany and
Japan were militarised societies that glorified war and conquest, held human
life to be cheap and regarded obedience to the state as the highest virtue.
Russian soldiers were inured to the harsh brutalities of Soviet rule and driven
on by the knowledge that they were fighting “a war of annihilation” against an
implacable enemy. If they wavered, they knew they would be shot by NKVD
enforcers. More than 300,000 were killed pour encourager les autres.
The majority of the civilian
soldiers of the Western democracies, by contrast, just wanted to survive and
return to normal life as soon as possible. That also meant that American and
British generals had to eschew the dashing aggression of their Russian and
German counterparts, who could squander lives with impunity. Thanks to the
bloodbath in Russia, where the Wermacht was broken and nine out of ten German
soldiers who died in the war met their end, they could permit themselves to be
more cautious.
Mr Hastings excessively admires
two German field-marshals: Gerd von Rundstedt and Eric von Manstein, whereas
only Bill Slim and George Patton rise above the general mediocrity of Allied
field commanders. Luckily, the tactical virtuosity of the Germans and Japanese
was more than matched by their strategic incompetence in declaring war against
Russia and America. Less hubristic and more informed leaders would have
realised that both countries had the manpower and industrial resources to
prevail in a war of attrition.
Close connections
Overall, however, Mr Hastings
does an admirable job of weaving together deeply personal stories with great
events and high strategy. This raises the question of whether another book
covering essentially the same ground is necessary. The answer depends on what
the reader is looking for. Mr Beevor, who is known for using the sometimes
unbearably moving diaries and letters of ordinary soldiers to shed new light on
old battles, is otherwise less generous than Mr Hastings in the space he gives
to primary sources. He has written what is in many ways a more conventional
military history. But where he is good, he is very good.
Mr Beevor is full of insight
about the connections between things—he sets out “to understand how the whole
complex jigsaw fits together”. Thus the relatively little-known Battle of
Khalkhin-Gol, in which Japan's plans to grab Soviet territory from its base in
Manchuria were undone in the summer of 1939 by the Red Army's greatest and most
ruthless general, Georgi Zhukov, had profound consequences. The Japanese
“strike south” party prevailed over the “strike northers”, ensuring that Stalin
would not have to fight a war on two fronts when the Germans launched Operation
Barbarossa in 1941. Mr Beevor decries the rebarbative “Bomber” Harris's attempt
to win the war by bringing death and destruction to every major German city as
a moral and strategic failure. But he also points out that by forcing the Nazis
to move squadrons of Luftwaffe fighters from Russia to defend the Fatherland,
Harris's campaign allowed the Soviet air force to establish vital air
supremacy.
Mr Beevor also has a surer hand
than Mr Hastings in describing how the great land battles of the war unfolded.
Although his judgments are less waspishly entertaining than his rival's, they
are also more measured. He is notably more generous about Britain's
contribution to defeating Hitler, which Mr Hastings at times appears to think
was mainly confined to the code-breaking centre at Bletchley Park and, after defeating
the Luftwaffe in 1940, providing an “unsinkable aircraft-carrier” for the
build-up of American military power.
Mr Beevor is keener than Mr
Hastings on detailing the horror. He is particularly vivid in describing the
barbarities that became commonplace during the carnage on the Eastern front.
Frozen German corpses littering the battlefield were frequently missing their
legs, not because they had been blown off, but because Red Army soldiers wanted
their boots and could only pull them off after the legs had been defrosted over
camp fires. Outside the besieged city of Leningrad, amputated limbs were stolen
from field hospitals and bodies snatched from mass graves as a source of food.
Within the city, 2,000 people were arrested for cannibalism. Those most at risk
were children, who were eaten by their own parents.
The cruelties perpetrated by the
Japanese against civilians in China (Mr Beevor sees the Sino-Japanese conflict
that began with the Nanking massacre in 1937 as the true opening chapter of the
second world war) and any of the countries unfortunate enough to come within
the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” were nearly as systematic as any
of the crimes committed by the Nazis. Japanese commanders actively encouraged
the dehumanisation of their troops in the belief it would make them more
formidable. Prisoners were burned on huge pyres in their thousands and killing
local people for meat was officially sanctioned.
Mr Beevor also gives more
attention than Mr Hastings to the appalling acts of violence suffered by women
when invading armies arrived. Again, it was the Japanese who set about
mass-rape with methodical zeal. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Korean
girls were press-ganged into becoming “comfort women”; 10,000 women were
gang-raped after the fall of Hong Kong. But revenge-fuelled Red Army soldiers
were little better. Soviet forces looting and pillaging their way through East
Prussia on their way to Berlin raped around 2m women and girls.
This is, however, a less
satisfying book than Mr Beevor's earlier, more focused works. There is an
unevenness of quality. The author has a tremendous grasp of the things he has
written about before, in particular the titanic struggle between Hitler and
Stalin. But he is dutiful rather than exhilarating when dealing with some other
passages and theatres of the war. The account of the campaign in north Africa
plods, and American readers may be disappointed by his handling of the war in
the Pacific. The battle of Midway, arguably the defining naval engagement
between Japan and America, gets two pages. At other times, there is too much
detail: a succession of generals, armies and battles come and go. Second world
war anoraks and students of military history will get more of what they are
looking for from Mr Beevor, but less committed readers will find Mr Hastings's
work easier to get to grips with and a better read. Is there room for both
books? Absolutely.
---------------
Rebuilding Europe after WW1 took
decades
The Canadian Press
The Basilica in Saint Quentin,
France, badly damaged during the First World War and later restored, is shown
in this 2013 handout photo. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO - Tom Douglas YPRES, Belgium – The First World War cut a swath of destruction across Europe, leaving centuries-old towns and hallowed buildings in ruins. Rebuilding took generations.
Many Canadians visiting this West Flanders city where so many of their forebears fought and died in that war marvel at the magnificent Cloth Hall in the Grand Market Square.
A lot of them don’t know, however, that this splendid example of 13th century architecture is not even as old the Centre Block of Ottawa’s Parliament Buildings.
Oddly, both the Cloth Hall and the original Centre Block of Parliament buildings burned and crashed to Earth within a couple of years of one another.
On the night of Feb. 3, 1916 a raging fire destroyed all but the Library of Parliament and the northwest wing of the Centre Block.
READ MORE: ‘Wait for Me, Daddy’ photo has dual meaning: Bernard
On Nov. 22, 1914, German shell fire struck the Cloth Hall. Wooden scaffolding set up to repair damage caused by earlier shelling quickly ignited and the upper floors of the hall were badly charred.
The Germans rained fire on Ypres for the rest of the war but never managed to seize it. Canadian soldiers, who saw their first major action of the war at the Second Battle of Ypres in April 1915, watched the gradual destruction of this former textile centre.
By the end of the war, in November 1918, the venerable city and its medieval buildings had been flattened.
Ottawa’s Centre Block was rebuilt in fairly short order. On September 1, 1919, the Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VIII, laid the cornerstone for the Peace Tower. The structure was completed in 1922.
The rebuilding of the Cloth Hall finally finished in 1967. And if Winston Churchill had had his way, Ypres would have been left as a pile of rubble as a monument to the hundreds of thousands of Allied troops killed there through the years of fighting.
READ MORE: D-Day 70th Anniversary: The first building liberated in Normandy
“I should like us to acquire the whole of the ruins of Ypres,” Great Britain’s future prime minister said in 1919. “A more sacred place for the British race does not exist in the world.”
But two factions of Ypres citizenry lobbied for reconstruction. One group wanted a new city built on the ruins using the fashionable art deco architecture of the 1920s.
Another group, which prevailed, favoured using the existing plans for the old city to create a replica of pre-war Ypres, paid for by German reparation payments and donations pouring in from all over the world.
Some French and Belgian communities, pounded flat by years of shelling, were never rebuilt, passing into history with no more than an inscribed cairn to mark their previous existence.
One of many badly damaged communities on the Western Front that actually was reborn in art deco style was Saint Quentin in the Picardy region of northern France near the Somme River.
It was the site of brutal fighting and a long German occupation which left three-quarters of the city in ruins.
Once again, war’s end brought an influx of German reparation payments as well as worldwide donations, and the townspeople decided to rebuild.
The reconstruction included colourful mosaics, floral friezes and wrought iron or bow windows that reflect the art deco motif and became a powerful tourist attraction that is still a major part of the city’s marketing campaign.
READ MORE: The perilous history of Canada’s Ross rifle
Frederic Buron, Saint Quentin’s manager of tourism development, said the city centre sustained the most damage, especially the Basilica, where the Germans used the church steeple as an observation post for artillery.
“The Basilica’s wooden framework, dating back to the 17th century, caught fire on Aug. 15, 1917 when Allied shelling targeted the steeple,” Buron said.
“The roof was destroyed and without its protection during the particularly harsh winter that followed, the interior of the building collapsed in on itself.
“Many stained glass windows were blown and the crypt housing the tomb of Saint Quintinus, the Roman martyr who gave his name to the city, burst open. A new crypt was constructed during the restoration and the sarcophagus containing the saint’s remains was transferred there.”
Buron added that the majority of the 55,000 inhabitants had fled either immediately after the German takeover in 1914 or during a massive evacuation in March 1917, when the Germans turned Saint Quentin into a fortress town as part of their defensive Hindenburg Line.
“At war’s end, the townspeople returned to find the city in ruins,” he said. “Temporary shelters were set up and the enormous task of rebuilding the city began.”
The reconstruction began with the transportation system, roads, canals and railways. The locals struggled to re-establish the industrial base that had been methodically dismantled and shipped off to Germany. It took until the late 1930s to get things back to pre-war conditions.
The pipes of the massive organ in the Basilica had been removed by the Germans and melted down to make weapons and ammunition. The pipes and the shattered stained glass windows were replaced in the rebuilding.
The process taught the locals a valuable lesson, Buron said.
“When the Second World War broke out in September 1939, we had to reverse the process and store away all our valuable artifacts to prevent them from being destroyed all over again.”
---------------
World War I, Recovery, and Collapse
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jlbroz/Courses/Lund/handouts/Lecture9_WWI_Recovery_Collapse.pdf
File format:Adobe PDF
uman costs (figure 2). –. N ew borders (figure 3) ... Global Economic
Problems after WWI. •. Need for European economic reconstruction. –. A ll
belligerents ...
------------------
Rebuilding the world after
the second world war
As many as 60 million dead, great cities reduced
to rubble, families torn apart ... The second world war caused
unprecedented hardship, but it also accelerated change. By Margaret MacMillan
A close-up of a page from a 1945 ration book. Photograph:
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Friday 11 September 2009 12.05 BST Last modified on Wednesday 13
January 2016 18.25 GMT
At the end of the first world war it had been possible to contemplate going
back to business as usual. However, 1945 was different, so different that it
has been called Year Zero. The capacity for destruction had been so much
greater than in the earlier war that much of Europe and Asia lay in ruins. And
this time civilians had been the target as much as the military. The figures
are hard to grasp: as many as 60 million dead, 25 million of them Soviet. A new
word, genocide, entered the language to deal with the murder of 6 million of
Europe's Jews by the Nazis.During the war, millions more had fled their homes or been forcibly moved to work in Germany or Japan or, in the case of the Soviet Union, because Stalin feared that they might be traitors. Now, in 1945, another new word appeared, the DP, or "displaced person". There were millions of them, some voluntary refugees moving westward in the face of the advancing Red Army, others deported as undesirable minorities. The newly independent Czech state expelled nearly 3 million ethnic Germans in the years after 1945, and Poland a further 1.3 million. Everywhere there were lost or orphaned children, 300,000 alone in Yugoslavia. Thousands of unwanted babies added to the misery. It is impossible to know how many women in Europe were raped by the Red Army soldiers, who saw them as part of the spoils of war, but in Germany alone some 2 million women had abortions every year between 1945 and 1948.
The allies did what they could to feed and house the refugees and to reunite families that had been forcibly torn apart, but the scale of the task and the obstacles were enormous. The majority of ports in Europe and many in Asia had been destroyed or badly damaged; bridges had been blown up; railway locomotives and rolling stock had vanished. Great cities such as Warsaw, Kiev, Tokyo and Berlin were piles of rubble and ash.
In Germany, it has been estimated, 70% of housing had gone and, in the Soviet Union, 1,700 towns and 70,000 villages. Factories and workshops were in ruins, fields, forests and vineyards ripped to pieces. Millions of acres in north China were flooded after the Japanese destroyed the dykes. Many Europeans were surviving on less than 1,000 calories per day; in the Netherlands they were eating tulip bulbs. Apart from the United States and allies such as Canada and Australia, who were largely unscathed by the war's destruction, the European powers such as Britain and France had precious little to spare. Britain had largely bankrupted itself fighting the war and France had been stripped bare by the Germans. They were struggling to look after their own peoples and deal with reincorporating their military into civilian society. The four horsemen of the apocalypse – pestilence, war, famine and death – so familiar during the middle ages, appeared again in the modern world.
New 'superpowers'
Politically, the impact of the war was also great. The once great powers of Japan and Germany looked as though they would never rise again. In retrospect, of course, it is easy to see that their peoples, highly educated and skilled, possessed the capacity to rebuild their shattered societies. (And it may have been easier to build strong economies from scratch than the partially damaged ones of the victors.) Two powers, so great that the new term "superpower" had to be coined for them, dominated the world in 1945. The United States was both a military power and an economic one; the Soviet Union had only brute force and the intangible attraction of Marxist ideology to keep its own people down and manage its newly acquired empire in the heart of Europe.
The great European empires, which had controlled so much of the world, from Africa to Asia, were on their last legs and soon to disappear in the face of their own weakness and rising nationalist movements. We should not view the war as being responsible for all of this, however; the rise of the US and the Soviet Union and the weakening of the European empires had been happening long before 1939. The war acted as an accelerator.
It also accelerated change in other ways: in science and technology, for example. The world got atomic weapons but it also got atomic power. Under the stimulus of war, governments poured resources into developing new medicines and technologies. Without the war, it would have taken us much longer, if ever, to enjoy the benefits of penicillin, microwaves, computers – the list goes on. In many countries, social change also speeded up.
The shared suffering and sacrifice of the war years strengthened the belief in most democracies that governments had an obligation to provide basic care for all citizens. When it was elected in the summer of 1945, for example, the Labour government in Britain moved rapidly to establish the welfare state. The rights of women also took a huge step forward as their contribution to the war effort, and their share in the suffering, were recognised. In France and Italy, women finally got the vote.
If class divisions in Europe and Asia did not disappear, the moral authority and prestige of the ruling classes had been severely undermined by their failure to prevent the war or the crimes that they had condoned before and during it. Established political orders – fascist, conservative, even democratic – came under challenge as peoples looked for new ideas and leaders. In Germany and Japan, democracy slowly took root.
In China, people turned increasingly from the corrupt and incompetent nationalists to the communists. While many Europeans, wearied by years of war and privation, gave up on politics altogether and faced the future with glum pessimism, others hoped that, at last, the time had come to build a new and better society. In western Europe, voters turned to social democratic parties such as the Labour party in Britain. In the east, the new communist regimes that were imposed by the triumphant Soviet Union were at first welcomed by many as the agents of change.
The end of the war inevitably also brought a settling of scores. In many parts people took measures into their own hands. Collaborators were beaten, lynched or shot. Women who had fraternised with German soldiers had their heads shaved or worse. Governments sometimes followed suit, setting up special courts for those who had worked with the enemy and purging such bodies as the civil service and the police. The Soviets also tried to exact reparations from Germany and Japan; whole factories were dismantled down to the window frames and were carted off to the Soviet Union, where they frequently rotted away. Much of the revenge was to gain advantage in the postwar world. In China and eastern Europe the communists used the accusation of collaboration with the Japanese or the Nazis to eliminate their political and class enemies.
German de-Nazification
The allies instituted an ambitious programme of de-Nazification in Germany, later quietly abandoned as it became clear that German society would be unworkable if all former Nazis were forbidden to work. In Japan, the head of the occupation, General Douglas MacArthur, broke up the zaibatsu, the big conglomerates that were blamed for supporting the Japanese militarists, and introduced a range of reforms, from a new school curriculum to a democratic constitution, that were designed to turn Japan into a peaceable democratic nation. In both Germany and Japan, the victors set up special tribunals to try those responsible for crimes against peace, war crimes, and the catalogue of horrors that came increasingly to be known as "crimes against humanity".
In Tokyo, leading Japanese generals and politicians, and at Nuremberg, senior Nazis (those that had not committed suicide or escaped), stood in the dock before allied judges. Not a few people then and since wondered if the trials were merely victors' justice, their moral authority undercut by the presence, in Nuremberg, of judges and prosecutors from Stalin's murderous regime, and by the fact that in Tokyo, the emperor, in whose name the crimes had been committed, was shielded from blame.
The trials, inconclusive though they were, formed part of a larger attempt to root out the militaristic and chauvinistic attitudes that had helped to produce the war, and to build a new world order that would prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again. Well before the war had ended, the allies had started planning for the peace. Among the western powers, the United States, by 1945 very much the dominant partner in the alliance, took the lead.
In his Four Freedoms speech of January 1941, President Roosevelt talked of a new and more just world, with freedom of speech and expression and of religion, and freedom from want and fear. In the Atlantic charter later that year, he and Churchill sketched out a world order based on such liberal principles as collective security, national self-determination, and free trade among nations. A host of other allies, some of them represented by governments in exile, signed on.
The Soviet Union gave a qualified assent, although its leader Stalin had no intention of following what were to him alien principles. Roosevelt intended that the American vision should take solid institutional form. The key organisation was the United Nations, designed to be stronger than the League of Nations, which it was replacing, and the economic ones known collectively as the Bretton Woods system, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. This time, Roosevelt was determined, the United States should join. Stalin again gave grudging support.
Common humanity
While much of what Roosevelt hoped for did not come about, it was surely a step forward for international relations that such institutions were created and largely accepted and, equally important, that they were underpinned by notions of a common humanity possessing the same universal rights. The idea that there were universal standards to be upheld was present, no matter how imperfectly, in the war crimes trials, and was later reinforced by the establishment of the United Nations itself in 1945, the International Court of Justice in 1946 and Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
It had already become clear at the top-level conferences of Teheran (1943), Yalta (February 1945) and Potsdam (July-August 1945) that there was a gulf in what constituted universal values and goals between the United States and its fellow democracies and the Soviet Union. Stalin was interested above all in security for his regime and for the Soviet Union, and that to him meant taking territory, from Poland and other neighbours, and establishing a ring of buffer states around Soviet borders. In the longer run, where the western powers saw a democratic and liberal world, he dreamed of a communist one.
The grand alliance held together uneasily for the first months of the peace, but the strains were evident in their shared occupation of Germany, where increasingly the Soviet zone of occupation was moving in a communist direction and the western zones, under Britain, France and the United States, in a more capitalist and democratic one.
By 1947, two very different German societies were emerging. In addition, the western powers watched with growing consternation and alarm the elimination of non-communist political forces in eastern Europe and the establishment of Peoples' Republics under the thumb of the Soviet Union. Soviet pressure on its neighbours, from Norway in the north to Turkey and Iran in the south, along with Soviet spy rings and Soviet-inspired sabotage in western countries, further deepened western concerns. For their part, Soviet leaders looked on western talk of such democratic procedures as free elections in eastern Europe as Trojan horses designed to undermine their control of their buffer states, and regarded the Marshall plan, which funnelled American aid into Europe, as a cover for extending the grip of capitalism. Furthermore, their own Marxist-Leninist analysis of history told them that sooner or later the capitalist powers would turn on the Soviet Union. Within two years of second world war's end, the cold war was an established fact.
Both sides built military alliances and prepared for the new shooting war that many feared was bound to come. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, giving it parity, at least in that area, with the United States. That the cold war did not in the end turn into a hot one was thanks to that fact. The terrifying new power of atomic weapons was to lead to a standoff suitably known as Mad – Mutually Assured Destruction.
The cold war overshadowed another momentous international change that came as a result of the second world war. Before 1939 much of the non-European world had been divided up among the great empires: the ones based in western Europe but also those of Japan and the Soviet Union. Japan and Italy lost their empires as a result of defeat. Britain, France, and the Netherlands all saw their imperial possessions disappear in the years immediately after the war. (The Soviet Union was not to lose its until the end of the cold war.)
Empires crumble
The former imperial powers no longer had the financial and military capacity to hang on to their vast territories. Nor did their peoples want to pay the price of empire, whether in money or blood. Furthermore, where the empires had once dealt with divided or acquiescent peoples, they now increasingly faced assertive and, in some cases, well-armed nationalist movements. The defeat of European forces all over Asia also contributed to destroying the myth of European power.
The British pulled out of India in 1947, leaving behind two new countries of India and Pakistan. Burma, Sri Lanka and Malaysia followed the road of independence not long after. The Dutch fought a losing war but finally conceded independence to Indonesia, the former Dutch East Indies, in 1949. France tried to regain its colonies in Indochina but was forced out in 1954 after a humiliating defeat at the hands of Vietnamese forces. The Europeans' African empires crumbled in the 1950s and early 1960s. The United Nations grew from 51 nations in 1945 to 189 by the end of the century.
Because of the cold war, there was no comprehensive peace settlement after the second world war as there had been in 1919. Instead there were a number of separate agreements or ad hoc decisions. In Europe most of the borders that had been established at the end of the first world war were restored.
The Soviet Union seized back some bits of territory such as Bessarabia, which it had lost to Romania in 1919. The one major exception was Poland, as the joke had it "a country on wheels", which moved some 200 miles to the west, losing some 69,000 sq metres to the Soviet Union and gaining slightly less from Germany in the west. In the east, Japan of course lost the conquests it had made since 1931, but was also obliged to disgorge Korea and Formosa (now Taiwan) and the Pacific islands that it had gained decades earlier. Eventually the United States and Japan concluded a formal peace in 1951. Because of an outstanding dispute over some islands, the Soviet Union and its successor Russia have not yet signed a peace treaty ending the war with Japan.
Remembering the war
We have long since absorbed and dealt with the physical consequences of the second world war, but it still remains a very powerful set of memories. How societies remember and commemorate the past often says something about how they see themselves – and can be highly contentious. Particularly in divided societies, it is tempting to cling to comforting myths to help bring unity and to paper over deep and painful divisions. In the years immediately after 1945, many societies chose to forget the war or remember it only in certain ways. Austria portrayed itself as the first victim of Nazism, conveniently ignoring the active support that so many Austrians had given the Nazi regime. In Italy, the fascist past was neglected in favour of the earlier periods of Italian history. For a long time, schools did not teach any history after the first world war. Italians were portrayed in films or books as essentially good-hearted and generally opposed to Mussolini, whose regime was an aberration in an otherwise liberal state.
In France, the Vichy period, after France's defeat by Germany, when there was widespread French collaboration, some of it enthusiastically antisemitic and pro-Nazi, was similarly ignored. From de Gaulle onwards, French leaders played up the resistance in such a way as to claim its moral authority but also to imply that it was more broadly based and widespread than it actually was.
West Germany was not able to escape its past so easily; under pressure from the allies and from within, it dealt much more thoroughly with its Nazi past. In West German schools, children learned about the horrors committed by the regime. East Germany, by contrast, took no responsibility, instead blaming the Nazis on capitalism. Indeed, many East Germans grew up believing that their country had fought with the Soviet Union against Hitler's regime.
In the east, Japan has been accused of ignoring its aggression in the 1930s and its own war crimes in China and elsewhere, but in recent years it has moved to teach more about this dark period in its history.
How should the past be remembered? When should we forget? These are not easy questions. Acknowledging such difficult parts of the past is not always easy and has led to history becoming a political football in a number of countries. In Japan, the conservatives minimise Japanese responsibility for the war and downplay atrocities on nationalist grounds. Japan, they argue, should not apologise for the past when all powers were guilty of aggression.
It has not necessarily been easier among the nations on the winning side. When French and foreign historians first began examining the Vichy period in France critically, they were attacked from both the right and the left for stirring up memories that were best left undisturbed. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was, for a time, a willingness among Russians to acknowledge that many crimes were committed in Stalin's regime in the course of the war, whether the mass murder of Polish army officers at Katyn or the forcible deportation of innocent Soviet citizens to Siberia.
Today, the conservatives argue that such criticism of the great patriotic war only gives comfort to Russia's foes. Britain and Canada played a major role in the mass bombing campaign of German cities and towns; suggestions that the destruction of Dresden or other targets that may have had little military significance might be war crimes causes impassioned debate in both countries. That the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been morally wrong or unnecessary causes equal controversy in the United States.
Today, particularly in the countries that were on the winning side, there is a reluctance to disturb our generally positive memories of the war by facing such issues. The second world war, especially in the light of what came after, seems to be the last morally unambiguous war. The Nazis and their allies were bad and they did evil things. The allies were good and right to fight them.
That is true, but the picture is not quite as black and white as we might like to think. After all, one ally was the Soviet Union, in its own way as guilty of crimes against humanity as Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or Japan. Britain and France may have been fighting for liberty, but they were not prepared to extend it to their empires. And Dresden, or the firebombing of Hamburg, Tokyo and Berlin, the forcible repatriation of Soviet prisoners of war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, should remind us that bad things can be done in the name of good causes. Let us remember the war, but let us not remember it simplistically but in all its complexity.
Margaret MacMillan is the warden of St Antony's college and a professor of international history at the University of Oxford. Her books include Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2001) and Seize the Hour: When Nixon Met Mao (2006). Her most recent book is The Uses and Abuses of History (2008)
---------------
Milestones: 1945–1952
Occupation and Reconstruction of
Japan, 1945–52
After the defeat of Japan in
World War II, the United States led the Allies in the occupation and
rehabilitation of the Japanese state. Between 1945 and 1952, the U.S. occupying
forces, led by General Douglas A. MacArthur, enacted widespread military,
political, economic, and social reforms.The groundwork for the Allied occupation of a defeated Japan was laid during the war. In a series of wartime conferences, the leaders of the Allied powers of Great Britain, the Soviet Union, the Republic of China, and the United States discussed how to disarm Japan, deal with its colonies (especially Korea and Taiwan), stabilize the Japanese economy, and prevent the remilitarization of the state in the future. In the Potsdam Declaration, they called for Japan’s unconditional surrender; by August of 1945, that objective had been achieved.
In September, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur took charge of the Supreme Command of Allied Powers (SCAP) and began the work of rebuilding Japan. Although Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China had an advisory role as part of an “Allied Council,” MacArthur had the final authority to make all decisions. The occupation of Japan can be divided into three phases: the initial effort to punish and reform Japan, the work to revive the Japanese economy, and the conclusion of a formal peace treaty and alliance.
The first phase, roughly from the end of the war in 1945 through 1947, involved the most fundamental changes for the Japanese Government and society. The Allies punished Japan for its past militarism and expansion by convening war crimes trials in Tokyo. At the same time, SCAP dismantled the Japanese army and banned former military officers from taking roles of political leadership in the new government. In the economic field, SCAP introduced land reform, designed to benefit the majority tenant farmers and reduce the power of rich landowners, many of whom had advocated for war and supported Japanese expansionism in the 1930s. MacArthur also tried to break up the large Japanese business conglomerates, or zaibatsu, as part of the effort to transform the economy into a free market capitalist system. In 1947, Allied advisors essentially dictated a new constitution to Japan’s leaders. Some of the most profound changes in the document included downgrading the emperor’s status to that of a figurehead without political control and placing more power in the parliamentary system, promoting greater rights and privileges for women, and renouncing the right to wage war, which involved eliminating all non-defensive armed forces.
By late 1947 and early 1948, the emergence of an economic crisis in Japan alongside concerns about the spread of communism sparked a reconsideration of occupation policies. This period is sometimes called the “reverse course.” In this stage of the occupation, which lasted until 1950, the economic rehabilitation of Japan took center stage. SCAP became concerned that a weak Japanese economy would increase the influence of the domestic communist movement, and with a communist victory in China’s civil war increasingly likely, the future of East Asia appeared to be at stake. Occupation policies to address the weakening economy ranged from tax reforms to measures aimed at controlling inflation. However the most serious problem was the shortage of raw materials required to feed Japanese industries and markets for finished goods. The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 provided SCAP with just the opportunity it needed to address this problem, prompting some occupation officials to suggest that, “Korea came along and saved us.” After the UN entered the Korean War, Japan became the principal supply depot for UN forces. The conflict also placed Japan firmly within the confines of the U.S. defense perimeter in Asia, assuring the Japanese leadership that whatever the state of its military, no real threat would be made against Japanese soil.
In the third phase of the occupation, beginning in 1950, SCAP deemed the political and economic future of Japan firmly established and set about securing a formal peace treaty to end both the war and the occupation. The U.S. perception of international threats had changed so profoundly in the years between 1945 and 1950 that the idea of a re-armed and militant Japan no longer alarmed U.S. officials; instead, the real threat appeared to be the creep of communism, particularly in Asia. The final agreement allowed the United States to maintain its bases in Okinawa and elsewhere in Japan, and the U.S. Government promised Japan a bilateral security pact. In September of 1951, fifty-two nations met in San Francisco to discuss the treaty, and ultimately, forty-nine of them signed it. Notable holdouts included the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia, all of which objected to the promise to support the Republic of China and not do business with the People’s Republic of China that was forced on Japan by U.S. politicians.
-------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zqhxvcw
--------
Canada
to End Airstrikes Against Islamic State Group Shortly
The War On Terror Has Cost
Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion [Infographic ...
Every Member State is legally obligated to pay their respective share towards peacekeeping. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The General Assembly apportions peacekeeping expenses based on a special scale of assessments under a complex formula that Member States themselves have established. This formula takes into account, among other things, the relative economic wealth of Member States, with the five permanent members of the Security Council required to pay a larger share because of their special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The General Assembly reaffirmed these and other general principles underlying the financing of peacekeeping operations in resolution A/RES/55/235
(23 December 2000).
More on how UN Peacekeeping is financed.
See the scale of assessments applicable to UN peacekeeping operations in the selected General Assembly documents.
].
By way of comparison, this is less than half of one per cent of world military expenditures (estimated at $1,747 billion in 2013).
The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping operations in 2013-2015 [A/67/224/Add.1]
are:
Although the payment of peacekeeping assessments is mandatory, as of 30 June 2015, Member States owed approximately $1.6 billion in current and back peacekeeping dues.
Approved resources for peacekeeping operations in selected General Assembly documents.
Each peacekeeping operation has its own budget and account which includes operational costs such as transport and logistics and staff costs such as salaries.
The peacekeeping budget cycle runs from 1 July to 30 June. This cycle is rarely aligned with the Security Council mandate; however budgets are prepared for 12 months based on of the most current mandate of the operation.
The Secretary-General submits budget proposal to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). The ACABQ reviews the proposal and makes recommendations to the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee for its review and approval. Ultimately, the budget is endorsed by the General Assembly as a whole.
At the end of the financial cycle, each peacekeeping operation prepares and submits a performance report which shows the actual use of resources. This report is also considered and approved by the General Assembly.
More on the process of establishing peacekeeping operation budget.
Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per month.
Police and other civilian personnel are paid from the peacekeeping budgets established for each operation.
The UN also reimburses Member States for providing equipment, personnel and support services to military or police contingents.
* All documents above are in PDF format.
2.
Iraq War Cost
$800 Billion, And What Do ... - The Huffington Post
Charts: Here's How Much We're
Spending on the War Against ISIS ...
How Countries Spend Their
Money
Each country has its own
spending needs that vary with the priorities of the populace, the size of the
population, the age of the population and the political involvements of that
country. Some of the largest expenditures of governments are the military,
health care and education.
Military
Military spending is important to most nations, with each country spending to its own need and ability. Canada spends 6.3 percent of its total yearly budget on military spending. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on military expenses. Mexico uses 3.3 percent of its budget for military spending.
Nicaragua spends 3.2 percent of its yearly budget on military expenses. In Columbia, military spending is 11.9 percent of its annual budget. Argentina military spending is 5.9 percent of its yearly budget.
In Scandinavia and Europe, military spending is relatively low. Norway spends 4.8 percent of its budget on military spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 4.3 percent of its budget on the military. In the U.K., military spending is 6.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, military spending is 3.3 percent. In France, military spending is 5.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 4.5 percent of its annual budget for military spending. The annual military spending of Spain is 4.2 percent.
In the Middle East, the level of military spending is generally higher than in Europe. In the United Arab Emirates, military spending makes up 45.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, military spending is 21.7 percent of its allocated budget. The military expenditure of Pakistan is 23.1 percent of all its yearly expenditures.
Morocco spends 13.6 percent of its annual budget on military expenditures. The military of South Africa is 4.8 percent of its budget. In India, military spending is 18.6 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 7 percent of its money on its military. Indonesia sends 6.5 percent of its budget in the military.
Australia spends 7.1 percent of its budget on its military. New Zealand military spending is 3.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 18.2 percent of the annual budget is spent on military expenses. South Korea spends 12 percent of its total yearly expenditures on the military. In Japan, the military spending percentage is 6.4 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 18.7 percent of its annual budget on the military.
Heath Care
Canada spends 17.9 percent of its total yearly budget on health care. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on health care expenses. Mexico uses 11.8 percent of its budget for health care.
Nicaragua spends 17 percent of its yearly budget on health care. In Columbia, health care spending is 17 percent of its annual budget. Argentina health care spending is 14.2 percent of its yearly budget.
Norway spends 17.9 percent of its budget on health care spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 13.8 percent of its budget on health care. In the U.K., health care spending is 16.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, health care spending is 17.9 percent. In France, health care spending is 16.7 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 14.2 percent of its annual budget for health care spending. The annual health care spending of Spain is 15.5 percent.
In the United Arab Emirates, health care spending makes up 8.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, health care spending is 11.5 percent of its allocated budget. The health care expenditure of Pakistan is 1.3 percent of all its yearly expenditures.
Morocco spends 4.8 percent of its annual budget on health care expenditures. The health care of South Africa is 9.1 percent of its budget. In India, health care spending is 3.4 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 11.3 percent of its money on its health care. Indonesia sends 6.2 percent of its budget in the health care.
Australia spends 17 percent of its budget on its health care New Zealand health care spending is 18.4 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 9.9 percent of the annual budget is spent on health care expenses. South Korea spends 11.7 percent of its total yearly expenditures on health care. In Japan, health care spending percentage is 17.9 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 10.8 percent of its annual budget on the health care.
Education
Canada spends 12.7 percent of its total yearly budget on education. The United States spends 17.1 percent of its budget on education expenses. Mexico uses 24.3 percent of its budget on education spending.
Nicaragua spends 15 percent of its yearly budget on education. In Columbia, education spending is 15.6 percent of its annual budget. Argentina education spending is 13.8 percent of its yearly budget.
Norway spends 16.2 percent of its budget on education spending, while Sweden spends 12.8 percent of its budget on education. In the U.K., education spending is 11.5 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, education spending is 9.5 percent. In France, education spending is 11.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 10.3 percent of its annual budget for education spending. The annual education spending of Spain is 11.3 percent of its budget.
In the United Arab Emirates, education spending makes up 22.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, education spending is 17.7 percent of its allocated budget. The education expenditure of Pakistan is 7.8 percent of all its yearly expenditures.
Morocco spends 26.4 percent of its annual budget on education expenditures. The education of South Africa is 18.5 percent of its budget. In India, education spending is 12.7 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends on education.
Australia spends 13.3 percent of its budget on education. New Zealand education spending is 15.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 12.1 percent of the annual budget is spent on education expenses. South Korea spends 15.5 percent of its total yearly expenditures on the education. In Japan, the education spending percentage is 10.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 11.5 percent of its annual budget on the education.
Countries spending the most on
the military
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) measures annual military spending for most of the world's armed countries. According to SIPRI, the U.S. spent $618 billion on its military last year, more than three times the $171 billion budget of second place China. Based on SIPRI's 2013 data, these are the countries with the largest military budgets.
According to Dr. Sam Perlo-Freeman, senior researcher and head of the SIPRI Project on Military Expenditure, austerity measures account for the majority of the declines in military spending, particularly in Western Europe.
In the U.S., lower military spending was partly the result of efforts to reduce the deficit, but mostly due to the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the peak of U.S. military expenditure in 2010, military spending has fallen 14% amidst growing concerns about the national debt. Similarly, the United Kingdom has dramatically reduced military expenditures following Prime Minister David Cameron's call for financial responsibility.
In other countries — especially those where military spending was on the rise — military budgets were dependent on a number of factors. A country's economy, for example, often mirrors military spending. "You need to have GDP growth to be able to afford higher military spending," Perlo-Freeman said.
This was evident in China, where military spending has grown in proportion to the country's economic growth. According to Perlo-Freeman, because personnel expenditure often accounts for the bulk of military spending, "when you see an economy growing, it's entirely natural that [spending] would increase."
Regional conflicts have also caused countries to increase the size of their military. Algeria, where the Arab Spring began in 2010, also became the first country in Africa with a military budget that exceeded $10 billion last year, likely due to instability within the country and unrest in the region. Similarly, mounting tension between Pakistan and India may have contributed to India becoming the world's largest arms importer last year.
MORE: Countries with the widest gap between the rich, poor
China's significant military budget and the modernization of its armed forces have contributed to tensions in Southeast Asia and the East Asian Sea. Territorial disputes, combined with high spending, as Perlo-Freeman explained, have induced countries to expand the size of their military expenditures. Japan, for example, increased its military budget for the first time in 10 years due to recent territorial disputes with China.
Some countries fund military spending through oil revenues because it is a direct source of revenue for the government that avoids increasing taxes. Military spending depends on "the government to actually be able to collect some of the proceeds of [economic] growth," mostly through taxation, Perlo-Freeman explained. However, increasing taxes for military spending is especially unpopular. "This is one of the reasons we often see such high shares of GDP devoted to spending in big-oil producers," Perlo-Freeman said. Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Russia are all large oil-producing nations, as well as some of the world's top military spenders.
MORE: The world's most content (and miserable) countries
To determine the top 10 countries that spent the most on their military in 2013, 24/7 Wall St. examined SIPRI data on military expenditure in over 170 countries. We reviewed SIPRI data on military exports, imports and military expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product. We also reviewed GDP and GDP growth figures from the International Monetary Fund.
These are the countries with the highest military expenditures.
1. United States
> Military expenditure: $618.7 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 3.8% (14th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: -7.8% (12th lowest)
> Total arms imports: $759 million (8th highest)
> Total arms exports: $6.2 billion (2nd highest)
The $619 billion military expenditure in the U.S. nearly outpaced the combined spending of every other country on this list in 2013. At the start of 2013, the U.S. had nearly 8,000 nuclear warheads in reserve. Since 2001, U.S. defense spending has risen from $287 billion to $530 billion. In recent years, however, U.S. military outlays fell from 4.8% of GDP in 2009 to 3.8% in 2013. Reduction in military expenditures was due to a greater emphasis on fiscal austerity and the winding down of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, military expenditure fell nearly 6% in 2012, followed by a 7.8% reduction in 2013. Despite efforts to curtail the size of the military, the U.S. supplied nearly $6.2 billion in arms to foreign allies, a figure second only to Russia. The U.S. was also a large arms importer, bringing in $759 million worth of arms, among the higher rates worldwide.
2. China
> Military expenditure: $171.4 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.0% (45th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: 7.4% (36th highest)
> Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (3rd highest)
> Total arms exports: $1.8 billion (3rd highest)
Military spending often mirrors economic growth, and this is especially true in China where military spending has increased in each of the past five years roughly in line with economic growth. Military expenditure grew 7.4% last year alone, far more than any other country in the region, and among the larger annual growths worldwide. The value of China's military exports trails only the U.S. and Russia, at around $1.8 billion last year. Unlike most other countries, China imported nearly as much in military goods as it exported, at $1.5 billion last year. According to Dr. Perlo-Freeman, a combination of increased Chinese military spending and rising regional tensions have encouraged higher military expenditures among neighboring countries like Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan.
MORE: Companies profiting the most from war
3. Russia
> Military expenditure: $84.9 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 4.1% (10th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: 4.8% (48th highest)
> Total arms imports: $148 million (33rd highest)
> Total arms exports: $8.3 billion (the highest)
Russia leads the rest of the world in military exports, with more than $8 billion worth last year, well above the U.S.'s $6.2 billion in exports. While total military spending in Russia remains a fraction of what it was in the late 1980s, it has been on the rise in recent years as a result of Russia's involvement in various regional conflicts. With the more recent ongoing Crimean crisis, this spending trend may likely continue. The country's military expenditure was roughly $85 billion last year compared to just $64.5 billion in 2009. Russia now spends 4.1% of its GDP on its military, exceeding that of the U.S. for the first time in over a decade. The dramatic increase is likely due in part to Russia's stated plans to invest more than $700 billion to modernize its weapons system by 2020. According to some onlookers, making these improvements may be difficult given Russia's low birth rates, poverty and lingering soviet-era corruption problems.
MORE: Countries spending the most on health care
4. Saudi Arabia
> Military expenditure: $62.8 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 9.3% (2nd highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: 14.3% (16th highest)
> Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
> Total arms exports: N/A
Situated in an increasingly unstable region, Saudi Arabia hiked its military budget by 14.3% in 2013. Saudi neighbors include Iraq and Yemen, which are currently in turmoil. Saudi Arabia has also had historically poor relations with another neighbor, Iran, which could become an even bigger threat if it acquires nuclear capabilities. The large increase in military outlays is likely a direct response to these threats. The House of Saud aims to replace its current 20-year old weapon stores, including a heavy investment in missile defense systems. Like many of the countries with the biggest military budgets, Saudi Arabia benefits from one of the world's largest oil reserves. At 9.3%, the country's spending as a percentage of GDP was second only to Oman, another oil-rich nation in the Middle East.
5. France
> Military expenditure: $62.3 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.2% (39th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: -2.3% (35th lowest)
> Total arms imports: $43 million (55th highest)
> Total arms exports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
Like much of Western Europe, France's military expenditure has fallen in recent years. France spent nearly $70 billion in 2009, versus more $62 billion last year. This decrease, however, was relatively small given the country's weak economic growth and implementation of the austerity measures after the global economic crisis. France passed the Military Programming Law in 2013, which aims to keep the current level of military spending through 2019. France exported nearly $1.5 billion in military goods last year, more than all but three other countries. French arms exports have historically ended up in Africa, where France maintains ties with many of its former colonies.
MORE AT 24/7 WALL ST.: The rest of the 10 countries that spent the most on the military
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/12/countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/
----
Saudi Arabia boosts military spending to record level
-----------------
What determination and willpower and courage can do- The Halifax Explosion 1917 with help from our brothers and sisters of Boston....
--------------
Did World War One nearly bankrupt Britain?
1.The economic situation in 1914
Before World War One, Britain was the world’s economic superpower. With rapid growth and a vast empire, the country enjoyed significant levels of wealth and resources. However it wasn’t ready for the economic impact war would have.
In contrast, Germany’s 1912 budget had approved rising military expenditure until 1917 – effectively militarising their economy ahead of the conflict.
When war erupted in the summer of 1914, Britain faced market panic and a massive financial crisis. Not only did the government need to reassure the markets, it had to prepare itself for the huge economic demands of total war.
2.The cost of war
War costs calculated from spending above level of year immediately preceding each war. Values shown are in constant 1900 prices. Unless stated otherwise, example costs are based on financial year ending 1918. The cost of bullets covers those fired in one 24 hour period in September 1918.
3.What the government did
Facing the financial strain of war, the government had to find ways of raising money. They had three main economic tools at their disposal:
Taxes
Although indirect taxes raised some money, the government turned to direct taxes - on property and income - on a far greater scale. In 1913 income tax was only paid by 2% of the population. During the war, another 2.4 million people would end up being eligible so by 1918, 8% were paying income tax.
Borrowing
This took the form of big international loans but also borrowing from the public through the war bonds scheme. Big promotional campaigns were used to inspire the country to invest in the war effort.
Printing money
Freed from the Gold Standard by the Currency and Bank Notes Act of 1914, the Bank of England was able to increase availability of money by printing it, even though this risked contributing to inflation - rising prices.
But just how well did these plans actually work?
4.How well it worked
The fact that the country didn’t collapse before winning the war implies that the government was successful – but at what cost?
Hugh examines the impact of the government’s plans.
5.The economic legacy
Although Britain was ultimately victorious, the effects of war would be felt for many years to come. Foreign trade, a key part of the British economy, had been badly damaged by the war. Countries cut off from the supply of British goods had been forced to build up their own industries so were no longer reliant on Britain, instead directly competing with her. In 1920/21, Britain would experience the deepest recession in its history.
World War One was a significant moment in the decline of Britain as a world power. It would be gradual, but by the mid-20th century the United States would usurp Britain as the leading global economic power.
Today, nearly £2 billion worth of bonds are circulating in the market. War bonds originally paid an interest rate of 5% but in 1932, as the government battled against a budgetary crisis, the then Chancellor Neville Chamberlain changed the terms of those bonds. He appealed to holders to do their patriotic duty and voluntarily accept a cut in the interest rate to 3.5%. All but a small minority agreed the terms – and that wasn’t their only sacrifice.
War bond holders also agreed in effect to accept that they might never get their investment back. Whereas the original bonds had been due to be repaid in full in 1947, Chamberlain converted them to “perpetuals”, giving the government the right not to pay back the loans if they so wished, as long as they continued paying the 3.5% interest.
Surprise, surprise – no government since the 1930s has chosen to repay these bonds. There are believed to be about 125,000 holders – some of whom might have inherited them from parents or relatives who bought them during World War One.
The continued existence of the war bond debt is possibly the most graphic illustration of the lasting shadow cast by World War One.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zqhxvcw
--------
----------
BLOGSPOT: july 11- 2013
FROM CANADA WITH LOVE:-
Robin William Peace Plan- and Jeff Foxwothy- Country Founded by Geniuses but
run by idiots- may ring true 2 so many other countries- they make sense.- some
humour
----------------
Canada
to End Airstrikes Against Islamic State Group Shortly
·
By CHARMAINE NORONHA, ASSOCIATED
PRESS
Canada's prime minister on
Monday announced that the country will end airstrikes against the Islamic State
group in Syria and Iraq by Feb. 22, saying that "the people terrorized by
ISIL every day don't need our vengeance, they need our help."
Justin Trudeau, following up on
campaign promises he made last year, also announced that the government will
expand efforts to train local forces and rebuild the war-torn region. Military
personnel in the region will increase to 830 from the current 650 and provide
planning, targeting and intelligence expertise.
"As I said many times
throughout the campaign in my commitment to Canadians, this is a non-combat
mission," Trudeau said. The Liberal leader said Canada's contribution to
the U.S.-led coalition's mission against the Islamic State group is being
extended until the end of March 2017.
The U.S. had asked coalition
members to boost their military contributions in Iraq and Syria against the
Islamic State group after the deadly attacks in Paris in November. However,
Trudeau's promise that Canada would pull its jets was already part of his
winning campaign.
"While airstrike
operations can be very useful to achieve short-term military and territorial
gains, they do not on their own achieve long-term stability for local
communities," Trudeau said during a news conference Monday. The country
had six fighter jets carrying out the strikes.
"We will be supporting and
empowering local forces to take their fight directly to ISIL so that ... they
can reclaim their homes, their land and their future," the prime minister
added.
Canada will keep two surveillance planes in the region as well
as refueling aircraft, and it will triple the number of soldiers training
Kurdish troops in northern Iraq to about 200, from about 69 now. The
size of Canada's "train, advise and assist" mission will triple,
including additional medical personnel and equipment including small arms,
ammunition and optics to assist in training Iraqi security forces.
Trudeau said the government will
spend more than US$1.15 billion (CA$1.6 billion) over the next three years on
the mission as a whole, including on security, stabilization and humanitarian
and development assistance.
Last March, one Canadian
soldier was killed and three others were injured in a friendly fire incident in
Iraq.
The military has said that
during Canada's decade of operations in Afghanistan, 158 Canadian Forces
personnel died.
Trudeau said Monday that Canada
learned the hard way in Afghanistan that airstrike operations do not on their
own result in long-term stability. He said Canada gained valuable experience
training local Afghan police and military forces.
"Experience that the
Canadian Armed Forces should be bringing to bear in Iraq and Syria," he
said.
The U.S. has said it respects
Canada's decision to pull its fighter jets out of the air campaign. But the
Americans did not invite Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan to recent coalition
meetings in Paris.
Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook welcomed Canada's announcement and
said Defense Secretary Ash Carter would be discussing it with his Canadian
counterpart in Brussels on Thursday at a meeting of anti-IS coalition members.
"The secretary sees these
as significant contributions, and he appreciates the decision by the Trudeau
government to step up Canada's role in the campaign at this critical
time," Cook said.
———
National Security Writer Robert
Burns in Washington contributed to this report.
-----------
EVIL IRAN-
we are all Neda #1BRising -Supreme Leader Mocks US Claim of Support for Human
Rights,Democracy Farsnews http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941119001172
----
Imho- What
is war and reconstruction vs peace costing us – humanity and environment vs war-
the world is in horrible debt…. Because of 2008 financial circumcision by world
conglomerates- banks-stock-politicians etc…. ask our beloved Greece who’s
grandmas and grandpas are losing 30 working years of penions…and now have also
become the dumping ground for Middle East / African human rejects…. What
happened to our world…. WELL… it’s
2016- the year of mercy, rebuilding, humanity and environment… vs the greedy
ugliness ruination of spite spoilt richmans UN wars… imho.
The cost of
war
The War On Terror Has Cost
Taxpayers $1.7 Trillion [Infographic ...
www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/02/03/the-war-on-terror-has-cost-taxpayers-1-7-trillion-infographic/
Feb 3, 2015 ... According to data compiled by the
Mercatus Center citing the Congressional Research Service, the cost of global
"War on Terror" operations ...
---------------
USA- Findings
·
Over 370,000 people have died due to
direct war violence, and many more indirectly
·
210,000 civilians have been
killed as a result of the fighting at the hands of all parties to the conflict
·
7.6 million — the number of
war refugees and displaced persons
·
The US federal price tag for the Iraq war
is about 4.4 trillion dollars
·
The wars have been accompanied by
violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the US and abroad
·
The wars did not result in inclusive,
transparent, and democratic governments in Iraq or Afghanistan
-------------
HOW MUCH
DOES WAR COST?
Economic Costs
The
United States federal government has spent or obligated 4.4 trillion dollars on
the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This figure includes: direct
Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the Pentagon base
budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security
budget; interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending;
and estimated future obligations for veterans’ care.
This
total omits many other expenses, such as the macroeconomic costs to the US
economy; the opportunity costs of not investing war dollars in alternative
sectors; future interest on war borrowing; and local government and private war
costs.
The
current wars have been paid for almost entirely by borrowing. This borrowing
has raised the US budget deficit, increased the national debt, and had other
macroeconomic effects, such as raising consumer interest rates. Unless the US
immediately repays the money borrowed for war, there will also be future
interest payments. We estimate that interest payments could total over $7
trillion by 2053.
Spending
on the wars has involved opportunity costs for the US economy. Although
military spending does produce jobs, spending in other areas such as health
care could produce more jobs. Additionally, while investment in military
infrastructure grew, investment in other, nonmilitary, public infrastructure
such as roads and schools did not grow at the same rate.
Finally,
federal war costs exclude billions of dollars of state, municipal, and private
war costs across the country – dollars spent on services for returned veterans
and their families, in addition to local homeland security efforts.
(Page
updated as of April 2015)
How
Much Does a War Cost?
What Has Not Been Counted
We
did not assess all the effects of these wars.
We
did not include in our budget tallies:
·
Some expenses related to veterans, including, for example,
total benefits to veterans from state and local governments;
·
State and municipal homeland security costs;
·
Costs of the wars to allies of the United States, including
costs to the governments and economies of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and
·
Budgetary and economic effects of the wars on the regional
neighbors of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, including costs of caring for war
refugees, for example.
We
did not systematically estimate the:
·
Effects on natural disaster preparedness of having US
National Guard troops and equipment abroad;
·
Number of contractors employed by US allies who were killed
or wounded;
·
Number of opposition forces killed; and
·
Resources devoted by the United Nations system,
non-governmental organizations, and other nations to ameliorate war related
suffering in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
(Page
updated as of January 2015)
-------------
UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING
…COSTS BY
HUMANITY’S POCKETS… it is our money, no matter what the rich men in their fancy
seats in safe places tell us…. Folks… it’s our money…
Peacekeeping operations
- What is peacekeeping?
- Current operations
- Past operations
- Forming a new operation
- Financing peacekeeping
Financing peacekeeping
While decisions about establishing, maintaining or expanding a peacekeeping operation are taken by the Security Council, the financing of UN Peacekeeping operations is the collective responsibility of all UN Member States.
UN Photo/Marie Frechon
UNAMID holds a ceremony in Nyala,
Sudan, to celebrate the arrival of five tactical helicopters from the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Pictured is one of the long-awaited
helicopters. Every Member State is legally obligated to pay their respective share towards peacekeeping. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The General Assembly apportions peacekeeping expenses based on a special scale of assessments under a complex formula that Member States themselves have established. This formula takes into account, among other things, the relative economic wealth of Member States, with the five permanent members of the Security Council required to pay a larger share because of their special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The General Assembly reaffirmed these and other general principles underlying the financing of peacekeeping operations in resolution A/RES/55/235
More on how UN Peacekeeping is financed.
See the scale of assessments applicable to UN peacekeeping operations in the selected General Assembly documents.
How much does peacekeeping cost?
The approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year 1 July 2015-30 June 2016 is about $8.27 billion [A/C.5/69/24By way of comparison, this is less than half of one per cent of world military expenditures (estimated at $1,747 billion in 2013).
The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping operations in 2013-2015 [A/67/224/Add.1]
- United States (28.38%)
- Japan (10.83%)
- France (7.22%)
- Germany (7.14%)
- United Kingdom (6.68%)
- China (6.64%)
- Italy (4.45%)
- Russian Federation (3.15%)
- Canada (2.98%)
- Spain (2.97%)
Although the payment of peacekeeping assessments is mandatory, as of 30 June 2015, Member States owed approximately $1.6 billion in current and back peacekeeping dues.
Approved resources for peacekeeping operations in selected General Assembly documents.
How are resources budgeted?
Budgets of peacekeeping operations are based on the missions’ mandate from the Security Council. As such, they are strategic documents aligning resources to achieve the overall objectives of the operation.Each peacekeeping operation has its own budget and account which includes operational costs such as transport and logistics and staff costs such as salaries.
The peacekeeping budget cycle runs from 1 July to 30 June. This cycle is rarely aligned with the Security Council mandate; however budgets are prepared for 12 months based on of the most current mandate of the operation.
The Secretary-General submits budget proposal to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). The ACABQ reviews the proposal and makes recommendations to the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee for its review and approval. Ultimately, the budget is endorsed by the General Assembly as a whole.
At the end of the financial cycle, each peacekeeping operation prepares and submits a performance report which shows the actual use of resources. This report is also considered and approved by the General Assembly.
More on the process of establishing peacekeeping operation budget.
How are peacekeepers compensated?
The UN has no military forces of its own, and Member States provide, on a voluntary basis, the military and police personnel required for each peacekeeping operation.Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per month.
Police and other civilian personnel are paid from the peacekeeping budgets established for each operation.
The UN also reimburses Member States for providing equipment, personnel and support services to military or police contingents.
Date
|
Title*
|
Symbol
|
27 December 2012
|
A/67/224/Add.1
|
|
24 December 2012
|
A/RES/67/239
|
|
3 August 2012
|
A/67/224
|
|
31 December 2009
|
A/64/220/Add.1
|
|
24 December 2009
|
A/RES/64/249
|
|
23 September 2009
|
A/64/220*
|
|
6 July 2007
|
A/62/11(Supp)
|
|
27 December 2006
|
A/61/139/Add.1
|
|
6 September 2006
|
A/61/139/Corr.1
|
|
13 July 2006
|
A/61/139
|
|
27 June 2006
|
A/61/11
|
|
17 December 2003
|
A/58/157/Add.1
|
|
15 July 2003
|
A/58/157
|
|
1 March 2001
|
A/C.5/55/38
|
|
30 January 2001
|
A/RES/55/235
|
|
29 January 2001
|
A/RES/55/236
|
Date
|
Title*
|
Symbol
|
23 January 2014
|
A/C.5/68/21
|
|
18 July 2013
|
A/C.5/67/19
|
|
27 June 2012
|
A/C.5/66/18
|
|
13 January 2012
|
A/C.5/66/14 |
|
7 February 2011
|
A/C.5/65/15
|
|
13 July 2010
|
A/C.5/64/19
|
|
22 January 2010
|
A/C.5/64/15
|
|
4 August 2009
|
A/C.5/63/26
|
|
1 May 2009
|
A/C.5/63/23
|
|
31 January 2008
|
A/C.5/62/23
|
|
15 January 2007
|
A/C.5/61/18
|
Related links
- Role of the General Assembly
- Fifth Committee of the General Assembly
- Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
- Contingent owned equipment
-------------
How Much Does a War Cost?
Come on, it's got to be sooo easy to figure out. How much
does a war cost?
How much doe a war REALLY cost?
Um, you gotta have some grunts, the people with boots on
the ground -- the Army and Marines, you gotta have some boats -- the Navy, and
you gotta have some aircraft -- primarily the Air Force -- but they're so
damned busy proselytizing for their Jesus that they forgot how to fly.
What is it, a simple $1million per unit of personnel per
year, that covers uniforms, armor and gear, support, food, shelter, whatever?
Boats and submarines are pretty pricey. Planes, other
aircraft, especially when they don't fly, pretty pricey.
Oh yeah, we gotta cover $1trillion or so for the money that
goes missing.
Add another $1trillion to feed the blood-sucking war
contractors, Jesus, Dick Cheney has to get his cut on this.
And don't forget a $trillion or so for cost overrruns,
general gouging by the bloodsucking war contractors and payoffs and other icky,
tricky stuff that always goes on in a war.
And ... below the fold ....
Um, those other costs of war.
All the damn dead people. A scattering of dead combatants,
a whole bunch of dead noncombatants. Defense, U.S. big shots, they don't like
to know how many people, total, die.
Kids, women, old people, dogs, kitties, other critters. A
whole bunch of dead bodies that we are supposed to avert our eyes from and not
count how many. So we don't really know how many.
Then, there's the destroyed infrastructure.
Bombed out buildings and bridges and roads and schools and
hospitals and all kinds of stuff in the war zone.
Bombed out buildings and bridges and roads and schools and
hospitals and all kinds of stuff within the invading and occupying nation --
you see, when we spend money on war and feeding the blood-sucking war
contractors we don't maintain our own infrastructure.
A bridge that falls down in Minnesota and kills thirteen
people. Avert you eyes. Don't look. We gotta have Cheney's cut covered. F***
the bridges and roads and schools and hospitals -- and stuff.
Joblessness, unemployment in the invading and occupying
nation, how many trillions does that cost?
Hungry families in this country because they are jobless or
they don't earn a living wage, how many trillions does that cost?
Oops, don't forget the war zone where millions of people
lose everything and are on the run. How many trillions does that cost?
Oh, yeah, and in the flux between the war zone and the
invading and occupying nation, you've got a bunch of people coming back missing
arms and legs and parts of their skulls and major parts of their hopes and
dreams, and a whole bunch of PTSD. How many trillions does that cost?
And, the interest that you're paying on the money that Bush
and Cheney borrowed for their "glorious" wars, and the general misery
and woe that goes along with a war and all the stuff that will haunt us for
years and years and years and a whole bunch of stuff involved in a war that I
forgot or don't know about.
So, how much does a war cost? Really?
---------
----------------
1.
2.
Iraq War Cost
$800 Billion, And What Do ... - The Huffington Post
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/iraq-war-costs_n...
Iraq
War Cost $800 Billion, And What Do We Have To Show For It? ... What does it
mean to say that the war in Iraq was a wasted effort? Last month, ...
------------
Charts: Here's How Much We're
Spending on the War Against ISIS ...
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/us-defense-spending-war-isis
Jun 14, 2015 ... Air Force spending accounts more than
two-thirds of the total cost. ... So how much *extra* do we pay if the guys
have to go flying or bumping ...
--------------
US Wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion
This article was originally posted on GR
on September 20, 2013
by Sabir Shah
The decade-long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up
costing as much as $6 trillion, the equivalent of $75,000 for every American
household, calculates the prestigious Harvard University’s Kennedy School of
Government.
Remember,
when President George Bush’s National Economic Council Director, Lawrence
Lindsey, had told the country’s largest newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”
that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, he had found
himself under intense fire from his colleagues in the administration who
claimed that this was a gross overestimation.
Consequently,
Lawrence Lindsey was forced to resign. It is also imperative to recall that the
Bush administration had claimed at the very outset that the Iraq war would
finance itself out of Iraqi oil revenues, but Washington DC had instead ended
up borrowing some $2 trillion to finance the two wars, the bulk of it from
foreign lenders.
According
to the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 2013 report, this
accounted for roughly 20 per cent of the total amount added to the US national
debt between 2001 and 2012.
According
to the report, the US “has already paid $260 billion in interest on the war
debt,” and future interest payments would amount to trillions of dollars. This
Harvard University report has also been carried on its website by the Centre for Research on Globalisation,
which is a widely-quoted Montreal-based independent research and media
organisation.
In
its report under review, the 377-year old Harvard University has viewed that
these afore-mentioned wars had not only left the United States heavily
indebted, but would also have a profound impact on the federal government’s
fiscal and budgetary crises over a protracted period.
The
report has attributed the largest share of the trillions of dollars in
continuing costs to care and compensation for hundreds of thousands of troops
left physically and psychologically damaged by the two wars being discussed
here.
The
report states: “The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the
most expensive wars in US history—totaling somewhere between $4 trillion and $6
trillion. This includes long-term medical care and disability compensation for
service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and
economic costs. The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid.”
It
asserts: “Another major share of the long-term costs of the wars comes from
paying off trillions of dollars in debt incurred as the US government failed to
include their cost in annual budgets and simultaneously implemented sweeping
tax cuts for the rich. In addition, huge expenditures are being made to replace
military equipment used in the two wars. The report also cites improvements in
military pay and benefits made in 2004 to counter declining recruitment rates
as casualties rose in the Iraq war.”
The
authors of this report have warned that the legacy of decisions taken during
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would dominate future federal budgets for decades
to come.
According
to the Harvard University report, some 1.56 million US troops—56 per cent of
all Afghanistan and Iraq veterans—were receiving medical treatment at Veterans
Administration facilities and would be granted benefits for the rest of their
lives.
It
reveals:
“One
out of every two veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan has already applied for
permanent disability benefits. The official figure of 50,000 American troops
“wounded in action” vastly underestimates the real human costs of the two US
wars. One-third of returning veterans are being diagnosed with mental health
issues—suffering from anxiety, depression, and/or post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).”
The
report notes that in addition, over a quarter of a million troops have suffered
traumatic brain injuries (TBI), which, in many cases, were combined with PTSD,
posing greater problems in treatment and recovery.
“Constituting
a particularly grim facet of this mental health crisis is the doubling of the
suicide rate for US Army personnel, with many who attempted suicide suffering
serious injuries,” opine the report authors.
It
maintains:
“Overall,
the Veterans Administration’s budget has more than doubled over the past
decade, from $61.4 billion in 2001 to $140.3 billion in 2013. As a share of the
total US budget it has grown from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent over the same
period. Soaring medical costs for veterans is attributable to several factors.
Among them is that, thanks to advancements in medical technology and rapid
treatment, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have survived wounds that would
have cost their lives in earlier conflicts.”
The
Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government report has estimated: “While
the US government has already spent $134 billion on medical care and disability
benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, this figure will climb by an
additional $836 billion over the coming decades.”
It
notes that the largest expenditures on health care for World War II veterans
took place in the 1980s, roughly four decades after the war, and that spending
on medical care and disability payments for Vietnam War veterans was still on
the rise.
Here
follows the description:
“The
most common medical problems suffered by troops returning from the two wars
include: diseases of the musculoskeletal system (principally joint and back
disorders); mental health disorders; central nervous system and endocrine
system disorders; as well as respiratory, digestive, skin and hearing
disorders. Overall, some 29 per cent of these troops have been diagnosed with
PTSD.”
The
report goes on to argue:
“Among
the most severely wounded are 6,476 soldiers and Marines who have suffered
“severe penetrating brain injury,” and another 1,715 who have had one or more
limbs amputated. Over 30,000 veterans are listed as suffering 100 percent
service-related disabilities, while another 145,000 are listed as 70 to 90
percent disabled.”
It
reads:
“The
worst of these casualties have taken place under the Obama administration as a
result of the so-called surge that the Democratic president ordered in
Afghanistan.”
It
mentions that the Walter Reed Medical Centre, US Army’s flagship hospital at
Washington DC, was treating hundreds of recent amputees and severe casualties,
adding that this facility had received 100 amputees for treatment during 2010;
170 amputees in 2011; and 107 amputees in 2012.
The
report has also stated that the US Marines have suffered an especially high
toll.
The
report points out:
“Massive
direct spending on the two imperialist interventions continues. With over
60,000 US troops remain in Afghanistan, it is estimated that the cost of
deploying one American soldier for one year in this war amounts to $1 million.
These troops continue suffering casualties—including in so-called “green on
blue” attacks by Afghan security forces on their ostensible allies. As they are
brought home, they will further drive up the costs of medical care and
disability compensation. The US is maintaining a vast diplomatic presence in
Iraq, including at least 10,000 private contractors providing support in
security, IT, logistics, engineering and other occupations; as well as
logistics support and payments for leased facilities in Kuwait.”
In
its conclusion, the report not only seeks to dispel illusions that ending
full-scale wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would produce any kind of “peace
dividend” that could help ameliorate conditions of poverty, unemployment and
declining living standards for working people in the US itself, but makes it
clear that the legacy of decisions made during the Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts would impose significant long-term costs on the federal government
for many years to come.
The
News Pakistan 2013
---
How Countries Spend Their
Money
Each country has its own
spending needs that vary with the priorities of the populace, the size of the
population, the age of the population and the political involvements of that
country. Some of the largest expenditures of governments are the military,
health care and education. Military
Military spending is important to most nations, with each country spending to its own need and ability. Canada spends 6.3 percent of its total yearly budget on military spending. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on military expenses. Mexico uses 3.3 percent of its budget for military spending.
Nicaragua spends 3.2 percent of its yearly budget on military expenses. In Columbia, military spending is 11.9 percent of its annual budget. Argentina military spending is 5.9 percent of its yearly budget.
In Scandinavia and Europe, military spending is relatively low. Norway spends 4.8 percent of its budget on military spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 4.3 percent of its budget on the military. In the U.K., military spending is 6.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, military spending is 3.3 percent. In France, military spending is 5.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 4.5 percent of its annual budget for military spending. The annual military spending of Spain is 4.2 percent.
In the Middle East, the level of military spending is generally higher than in Europe. In the United Arab Emirates, military spending makes up 45.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, military spending is 21.7 percent of its allocated budget. The military expenditure of Pakistan is 23.1 percent of all its yearly expenditures.
Morocco spends 13.6 percent of its annual budget on military expenditures. The military of South Africa is 4.8 percent of its budget. In India, military spending is 18.6 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 7 percent of its money on its military. Indonesia sends 6.5 percent of its budget in the military.
Australia spends 7.1 percent of its budget on its military. New Zealand military spending is 3.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 18.2 percent of the annual budget is spent on military expenses. South Korea spends 12 percent of its total yearly expenditures on the military. In Japan, the military spending percentage is 6.4 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 18.7 percent of its annual budget on the military.
Heath Care
Canada spends 17.9 percent of its total yearly budget on health care. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on health care expenses. Mexico uses 11.8 percent of its budget for health care.
Nicaragua spends 17 percent of its yearly budget on health care. In Columbia, health care spending is 17 percent of its annual budget. Argentina health care spending is 14.2 percent of its yearly budget.
Norway spends 17.9 percent of its budget on health care spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 13.8 percent of its budget on health care. In the U.K., health care spending is 16.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, health care spending is 17.9 percent. In France, health care spending is 16.7 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 14.2 percent of its annual budget for health care spending. The annual health care spending of Spain is 15.5 percent.
In the United Arab Emirates, health care spending makes up 8.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, health care spending is 11.5 percent of its allocated budget. The health care expenditure of Pakistan is 1.3 percent of all its yearly expenditures.
Morocco spends 4.8 percent of its annual budget on health care expenditures. The health care of South Africa is 9.1 percent of its budget. In India, health care spending is 3.4 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 11.3 percent of its money on its health care. Indonesia sends 6.2 percent of its budget in the health care.
Australia spends 17 percent of its budget on its health care New Zealand health care spending is 18.4 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 9.9 percent of the annual budget is spent on health care expenses. South Korea spends 11.7 percent of its total yearly expenditures on health care. In Japan, health care spending percentage is 17.9 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 10.8 percent of its annual budget on the health care.
Education
Canada spends 12.7 percent of its total yearly budget on education. The United States spends 17.1 percent of its budget on education expenses. Mexico uses 24.3 percent of its budget on education spending.
Nicaragua spends 15 percent of its yearly budget on education. In Columbia, education spending is 15.6 percent of its annual budget. Argentina education spending is 13.8 percent of its yearly budget.
Norway spends 16.2 percent of its budget on education spending, while Sweden spends 12.8 percent of its budget on education. In the U.K., education spending is 11.5 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, education spending is 9.5 percent. In France, education spending is 11.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 10.3 percent of its annual budget for education spending. The annual education spending of Spain is 11.3 percent of its budget.
In the United Arab Emirates, education spending makes up 22.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, education spending is 17.7 percent of its allocated budget. The education expenditure of Pakistan is 7.8 percent of all its yearly expenditures.
Morocco spends 26.4 percent of its annual budget on education expenditures. The education of South Africa is 18.5 percent of its budget. In India, education spending is 12.7 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends on education.
Australia spends 13.3 percent of its budget on education. New Zealand education spending is 15.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 12.1 percent of the annual budget is spent on education expenses. South Korea spends 15.5 percent of its total yearly expenditures on the education. In Japan, the education spending percentage is 10.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 11.5 percent of its annual budget on the education.
---------------
Countries spending the most on
the military
In the U.S., lower military spending was partly the result of efforts to
reduce the deficit, but mostly due to the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.(Photo: Thinkstock)
Global military spending
continued to decline last year. Although arms expenditure has actually
increased in much of the world, military spending in the United States — which
still accounted for 37% of total global military spending in 2013 — has
declined in recent years.The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) measures annual military spending for most of the world's armed countries. According to SIPRI, the U.S. spent $618 billion on its military last year, more than three times the $171 billion budget of second place China. Based on SIPRI's 2013 data, these are the countries with the largest military budgets.
According to Dr. Sam Perlo-Freeman, senior researcher and head of the SIPRI Project on Military Expenditure, austerity measures account for the majority of the declines in military spending, particularly in Western Europe.
In the U.S., lower military spending was partly the result of efforts to reduce the deficit, but mostly due to the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the peak of U.S. military expenditure in 2010, military spending has fallen 14% amidst growing concerns about the national debt. Similarly, the United Kingdom has dramatically reduced military expenditures following Prime Minister David Cameron's call for financial responsibility.
In other countries — especially those where military spending was on the rise — military budgets were dependent on a number of factors. A country's economy, for example, often mirrors military spending. "You need to have GDP growth to be able to afford higher military spending," Perlo-Freeman said.
This was evident in China, where military spending has grown in proportion to the country's economic growth. According to Perlo-Freeman, because personnel expenditure often accounts for the bulk of military spending, "when you see an economy growing, it's entirely natural that [spending] would increase."
Regional conflicts have also caused countries to increase the size of their military. Algeria, where the Arab Spring began in 2010, also became the first country in Africa with a military budget that exceeded $10 billion last year, likely due to instability within the country and unrest in the region. Similarly, mounting tension between Pakistan and India may have contributed to India becoming the world's largest arms importer last year.
MORE: Countries with the widest gap between the rich, poor
China's significant military budget and the modernization of its armed forces have contributed to tensions in Southeast Asia and the East Asian Sea. Territorial disputes, combined with high spending, as Perlo-Freeman explained, have induced countries to expand the size of their military expenditures. Japan, for example, increased its military budget for the first time in 10 years due to recent territorial disputes with China.
Some countries fund military spending through oil revenues because it is a direct source of revenue for the government that avoids increasing taxes. Military spending depends on "the government to actually be able to collect some of the proceeds of [economic] growth," mostly through taxation, Perlo-Freeman explained. However, increasing taxes for military spending is especially unpopular. "This is one of the reasons we often see such high shares of GDP devoted to spending in big-oil producers," Perlo-Freeman said. Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Russia are all large oil-producing nations, as well as some of the world's top military spenders.
MORE: The world's most content (and miserable) countries
To determine the top 10 countries that spent the most on their military in 2013, 24/7 Wall St. examined SIPRI data on military expenditure in over 170 countries. We reviewed SIPRI data on military exports, imports and military expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product. We also reviewed GDP and GDP growth figures from the International Monetary Fund.
These are the countries with the highest military expenditures.
1. United States
> Military expenditure: $618.7 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 3.8% (14th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: -7.8% (12th lowest)
> Total arms imports: $759 million (8th highest)
> Total arms exports: $6.2 billion (2nd highest)
The $619 billion military expenditure in the U.S. nearly outpaced the combined spending of every other country on this list in 2013. At the start of 2013, the U.S. had nearly 8,000 nuclear warheads in reserve. Since 2001, U.S. defense spending has risen from $287 billion to $530 billion. In recent years, however, U.S. military outlays fell from 4.8% of GDP in 2009 to 3.8% in 2013. Reduction in military expenditures was due to a greater emphasis on fiscal austerity and the winding down of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, military expenditure fell nearly 6% in 2012, followed by a 7.8% reduction in 2013. Despite efforts to curtail the size of the military, the U.S. supplied nearly $6.2 billion in arms to foreign allies, a figure second only to Russia. The U.S. was also a large arms importer, bringing in $759 million worth of arms, among the higher rates worldwide.
2. China
> Military expenditure: $171.4 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.0% (45th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: 7.4% (36th highest)
> Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (3rd highest)
> Total arms exports: $1.8 billion (3rd highest)
Military spending often mirrors economic growth, and this is especially true in China where military spending has increased in each of the past five years roughly in line with economic growth. Military expenditure grew 7.4% last year alone, far more than any other country in the region, and among the larger annual growths worldwide. The value of China's military exports trails only the U.S. and Russia, at around $1.8 billion last year. Unlike most other countries, China imported nearly as much in military goods as it exported, at $1.5 billion last year. According to Dr. Perlo-Freeman, a combination of increased Chinese military spending and rising regional tensions have encouraged higher military expenditures among neighboring countries like Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan.
MORE: Companies profiting the most from war
3. Russia
> Military expenditure: $84.9 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 4.1% (10th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: 4.8% (48th highest)
> Total arms imports: $148 million (33rd highest)
> Total arms exports: $8.3 billion (the highest)
Russia leads the rest of the world in military exports, with more than $8 billion worth last year, well above the U.S.'s $6.2 billion in exports. While total military spending in Russia remains a fraction of what it was in the late 1980s, it has been on the rise in recent years as a result of Russia's involvement in various regional conflicts. With the more recent ongoing Crimean crisis, this spending trend may likely continue. The country's military expenditure was roughly $85 billion last year compared to just $64.5 billion in 2009. Russia now spends 4.1% of its GDP on its military, exceeding that of the U.S. for the first time in over a decade. The dramatic increase is likely due in part to Russia's stated plans to invest more than $700 billion to modernize its weapons system by 2020. According to some onlookers, making these improvements may be difficult given Russia's low birth rates, poverty and lingering soviet-era corruption problems.
MORE: Countries spending the most on health care
4. Saudi Arabia
> Military expenditure: $62.8 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 9.3% (2nd highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: 14.3% (16th highest)
> Total arms imports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
> Total arms exports: N/A
Situated in an increasingly unstable region, Saudi Arabia hiked its military budget by 14.3% in 2013. Saudi neighbors include Iraq and Yemen, which are currently in turmoil. Saudi Arabia has also had historically poor relations with another neighbor, Iran, which could become an even bigger threat if it acquires nuclear capabilities. The large increase in military outlays is likely a direct response to these threats. The House of Saud aims to replace its current 20-year old weapon stores, including a heavy investment in missile defense systems. Like many of the countries with the biggest military budgets, Saudi Arabia benefits from one of the world's largest oil reserves. At 9.3%, the country's spending as a percentage of GDP was second only to Oman, another oil-rich nation in the Middle East.
5. France
> Military expenditure: $62.3 billion
> Expenditure as pct. of GDP: 2.2% (39th highest)
> 1-yr. spending change: -2.3% (35th lowest)
> Total arms imports: $43 million (55th highest)
> Total arms exports: $1.5 billion (4th highest)
Like much of Western Europe, France's military expenditure has fallen in recent years. France spent nearly $70 billion in 2009, versus more $62 billion last year. This decrease, however, was relatively small given the country's weak economic growth and implementation of the austerity measures after the global economic crisis. France passed the Military Programming Law in 2013, which aims to keep the current level of military spending through 2019. France exported nearly $1.5 billion in military goods last year, more than all but three other countries. French arms exports have historically ended up in Africa, where France maintains ties with many of its former colonies.
MORE AT 24/7 WALL ST.: The rest of the 10 countries that spent the most on the military
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/12/countries-spending-most-on-military/12491639/
----
Saudi Arabia boosts military spending to record level
Saudi
Arabia is spending more than ever on defense after boosting its military budget
by 17% in 2014, a new report shows.
That was the biggest increase
among the world's top defense spenders, according to the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute.
The dramatic increase reflects
the volatile security situation in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has been
leading a military
campaign against Shiite rebels in neighboring Yemen in recent weeks.
With high oil prices filling its
coffers, Saudi Arabia spent $80.8 billion on its military last year -- the
fourth highest total in the world. That represents more than 10% of Saudi GDP
-- a bigger share than any country other than Oman.
Global military spending was
mostly flat last year, but the Middle East and much of Africa saw strong
increases, said Sam Perlo-Freeman, the head of military expenditure research at
the Stockholm institute.
The United States cut military
spending by 6.5% in 2014 as part of a plan to reduce the budget deficit.
Military spending in the U.S. has fallen by 20% since its peak in 2010, but
remains 45% higher than before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The U.S. is still the world's
biggest spender by far. Its 2014 bill totaled $610 billion, nearly three times
China's budget of $216 billion. That was up 9.7% from a year earlier.
Russia is third on the list
after the U.S. and China. It spent $84.5 billion in 2014, an increase of 8.1%
in just a year.
Russia was planning for the
increase even before the start of the crisis in Ukraine. Its
long term military modernization plan aims to provide 70% of the armed forces
with new equipment by 2020.
Moscow is aiming for further
growth of 15% in 2015. The original plan was for an even bigger increase, but
the government was forced to cut back after the collapse in oil prices late
last year pushed the country intro
recession.
The conflict in Ukraine is
forcing other European countries to boost their military budgets.
Spending in eastern Europe was
up 8.4% in 2014, reaching $93.9 billion. Poland and Ukraine recorded the
biggest increases. The institute said military spending in eastern European has
increased by 98% since 2005.
-------
Next time there's a crisis, the big banks should be allowed
to fail http://tgr.ph/p3lBix
-------------
UNITED NATIONS -how evil u r 2 women and girls-u END girl
circumcision/castration by 2030??? Human Rights my arse- http://ind.pn/1oliKdM
----------
USA
Charts: Here’s How Much We’re Spending on the War
Against ISIS
—By
Edwin Rios
| Sun Jun. 14, 2015 5:05 AM EDT
As the White House considers opening operating bases in Iraq and
deploying troops to bolster support for Iraqi forces against ISIS, including one in ISIS-held territory, the cost of
airstrikes in the region continues its steady rise.
The Department of Defense has spent more than $2.7 billion—some $9 million
per day—since the United States began operations against the so-called Islamic
State last August. To put that in perspective, the DOD is on pace to spend a
little more than $14 million per day to combat ISIS in fiscal year 2015. That's
minuscule compared to the roughly $187 million the Defense Department is
still spending on the Iraq War each day.
The result? More than 6,200 targets damaged or destroyed in the course of nine
months, according to the DOD. Roughly two-thirds of that spending, or a little
more than $1.8 billion, came from the Air Force, with air operations
costing $5 million per day.
The newly released DOD data comes as the House passed a $579 billion defense spending bill for
the coming fiscal year. Here's the breakdown:
---------------
ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION 1945-1960
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RECOVERY
The Second World War had brought colossal destruction to Europe. Every participating country was economically exhausted after the war. But in 1948, the European economy began to revive. From 1950 onward, European economic growth became rapid.
There are a number of factors which can explain the rapid economic recovery of Europe:
(1) the changes in government policies;
(2) growth in world trade;
(3) scientific and technological advances;
(4) foreign aid
(2) growth in world trade;
(3) scientific and technological advances;
(4) foreign aid
Of these four factors, the last factor may be the most important one.
(1) Economic recovery was helped by the. changes in government policies. Before the war, most European governments adopted the laissez-faire policy. After the Second World War, most of them tried to stimulate the economic growth of their own countries by more government investments. In Britain, the Beveridge Report was adopted and it meant that the British government would make heavy investment in developing the welfare services in Britain. In France, Jean Monnet, the Commissioner of the Plan for the Reconstruction of Key Industries, drew up a comprehensive scheme of modernization in 1946. According to the Plan, the French government was to provide the financial resources for setting up a new transport system, for modernizing the machines of the basic industries, for constructing more houses and for improving farming facilities. Government investment encouraged private investment, created full employment and led to continuing economic growth of Europe in the long run.
(2) Growth in world trade also helped economic recovery. After the war, many European countries had realized the disastrous effects of tariffs on inter-European trade. They began to co-operate economically and tried to lower their tariffs. Both the Organization for European Economic Co-operation and the European Economic Community worked hard to reduce tariffs between European states. Intra-European trade increased as a result of the reduction in tariffs.
Trade between Europe and the developing countries in Asia and Africa also increased after the war. After 1945 the primary producers in Asia and Africa were benefitted by the general increases in the price of raw materials. As they were growing richer, their demand for European products increased.
(3) Scientific and technological advances after 1945 also helped economic recovery. Both chemical and electrical engineering industries made rapid advances during and after the war. As a result, new varieties of electrical and chemical consumer goods were made after the war. Washing machines, refrigerators, radios and television-sets were produced in large quantities and so they were sold at low prices. The demand for these new products ensured continuing prosperity in the post-war years.
(4) The most important factor in assisting speedy economic recovery in the immediate post-war years was the injection of foreign aid into the European economy.
(i) U.N.R.R.A. (1943-1948):
Late in 1943 the United Nations Relief and. Re-habilitation Administration (UNRRA) was formed. This Administration consisted of 44 member-nations. Its staff was recruited internationally. Its finance came from 44 member-nations, with the United States making the greatest contribution.
This international agency provided first aid of all kinds to the countries that were just liberated from Nazi domination. Besides giving immediate aid, this agency also helped the war-torn countries to rebuild their communication system and to rehabilitate their agriculture and industry.
Up to 1948 when this agency was dissolved, 22 million tons of supplies (e.g. food, clothing, medicine and other daily commodities) had been supplied to the needy countries. The chief beneficiaries were Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Italy. Without this material relief, the eastern European countries would suffer greater material distress in the immediate post-war years.
(ii) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and an International Monetary Fund:
The western nations also planned to provide financial relief to the needy countries. In 1944, at a conference held at Bretton Woods in New Hampshire, they agreed to set up an International Bank for Reconstruction (the World Bank) as well as an international Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Bank lent money to war-torn countries for reconstruction purposes, and to developing countries for further development. The IMF provided short-term loans to nations having temporary unbalance of payments.
(iii) Marshall Aid (European Recovery Program):
Shortly after the proclamation of the Truman Doctrine, the American Secretary of State, George Marshall proposed to finance the recovery and reconstruction of Europe by a programme of economic aid.
Marshall declared that the U.S. would provide financial aid to European countries if they agreed to rebuild their economy on a co-operative basis. In other words, the European countries should have a joint programme for economic reconstruction. They were expected to adopt an agreed system of tariffs, and to gear their industrial and agricultural production together so that they would not waste any financial aid in unnecessary economic competition between one another and could quicken their mutual economic recovery.
In July 1947, the European countries came together to examine Marshall's proposal at Paris. The Soviet Union attacked the disclosure of the financial record of each recipient country to America because it infringed their economic independence. She also condemned the Marshall Plan as a scheme to sell non-essential U.S. goods to Europe and as an imperialistic tactic to stretch American commercial interests into the communist market. The Soviet Union and her satellites withdrew from the conference and did not receive any American aid.
The western nations thought otherwise. They believed that the United States was helping them to achieve a speedy economic recovery. On July 16, the sixteen western nations (Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland, Eire and Turkey) at a meeting formed the Committee of European Economic Co-operation and asked it to draw up a four year recovery programme. The programme was delayed by the American Congress. It was anxious about the huge sums of money that the programme involved. But after Czechoslovakia had become communist, the United States felt the urgency of the situation and eventually approved the programme in April 1948. To administer the programme, the European nations set up the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (O.E.E.C.) in Paris.
From 1948 to 1952, the United States spent about $12 billion to assist the economic recovery of the western nations half of the sum went to Great Britain, France and West Germany. The massive American financial aid made available for investment in industrial and agricultural production greatly stimulated the economic productivity of Europe. Two years after the launching of the Marshall Plan, the productivity of western Europe exceeded the pre-1939 average by 25%. In 1952, productivity was twice that of 1938. Intra-European trade revived. By 1952, Europe had not only recovered from her economic distress but was on the point of having the greatest boom in its history. Between 1950 and 1960 the annual rate of growth in the output of goods produced in the West jumped to 3.9 per cent, whereas the rate of growth was about 2.7 per cent between 1870 and 1913. In short, the Marshall Aid had not only enabled the European countries to have a swift economic recovery but had also brought about the greatest economic boom in Europe. Finally, the success of the Marshall Plan also encouraged further economic co-operation among the European nations, about which we shall discuss in the following pages.
[Go Top]
ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
(1) Background - Reasons for Economic Co-operation
The idea of European unity was century-old. It went back to the medieval ideal of the restored Roman Empire. For centuries, philosophers, statesmen and romantic thinkers had called for some form of European union. During the inter-war years (1920-1939), a Pan-European Union was formed by Count Condenhove-Kalergi to promote the idea of a United Europe.
During the Second World War, many political leaders of the western European countries had seen the destructive effects of national self-interest. They advocated more economic and political co-operation among the European states so as to avoid wars in the future.
After the Second World War, it was widely believed that European economic recovery could be quickened by a co-operative effort among the European states. There was also a growing conviction that in the modern competitive world, the small nation-states could not be economically viable. The small European states could compete with the two economic giants, Russia and the United States, only through the removal of tariff barriers between themselves, economic co-operation and the utilization of their economic resources on a continental scale.
[Go Top]
Western Europe - Early Efforts at Economic Co-operation
(i) Benelux (1944):
During the war (1944), the exiled governments of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg made an agreement to integrate their economies after the war.
By 1946 their decision began to be carried out. In 1948, they abolished tariff barrier among themselves and charged common rat6 on incoming foreign goods. The resulting enlargement of their free-trade areas stimulated economic activity. Trade among the 3 member-states and their domestic production increased rapidly. The economic success of Benelux encouraged other European countries to begin economic co-operation. (Economic integration of these three states came near to completion in 1958, with the formation of Benelux Economic Union. There have been free movement of people, capital and goods within the union since 1960)
(ii) Treaty of Dunkirk (1947):
In 1947 Britain and France signed the Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance at Dunkirk. The primary purpose of the Treaty was military - to prevent future German aggression, but the Treaty also provided for bi-lateral economic assistance and cooperation.
(iii) The Pact of Brussels (1948):
Shortly afterwards the Dunkirk Treaty was broadened into the Pact of Brussels by the inclusion of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. Like the Treaty of Dunkirk, its primary purpose was military but the Pact also provided for consultation on economic problems.
(iv) Organization for European Economic Co-operation (O.E.E.C.) (1948):
The most important impetus towards economic co-operation and economic integration came with the launching of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was designed to help Europe to recover economically as a whole unit. All European nations were invited to participate in a joint programme for their economic recovery. In June 1948, the European states formed the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (O.E.E.C.) to administer the Marshall Plan.
The O.E.E.C. was an inter-governmental body. Its council consisted of representatives of all member states. This body had the power to determine questions of general policy and overall administration. Its decisions were unanimous. Dissenters might abstain and the decision did not apply to them. But after a unanimous vote the council's decisions were binding on all members who agreed to the decisions (but not to the dissenters). It could make agreements with non-members and international bodies.
The O.E.E.C. had five important functions. The first function of the O.E.E.C. was to divide American aid among the member states. This function was successfully carried out from 1948 to 1952. The second function was to reduce trade-barriers. The O.E.E.C. had successfully reduced import controls between European countries. As a result, intra-European trade more than doubled from 1948 to 1954. The third function was to improve the system of payments in intra-European trade. In 1950 the O.E.E.C. Council set up the European Payment Union. This allowed the O.E.E.C. members to settle their trade accounts (debts and credits) on a multilateral basis rather than by bilateral agreements between individual countries. Since the trade balances of the 16 members of the O.E.E.C. were settled together, the pressure on the scarce money resources between European countries was much reduced. The fourth function was to make technical studies necessary for European economic growth, such as studies on international payments, international trade and movements of labour. These technical studies laid the groundwork for future economic planning. The ultimate purpose of the O.E.E.C. was to provide for a large free trade area in which the member states would enjoy stable currency, increased production and increasing prosperity.
[Go Top]
Although the O.E.E.C. had not yet achieved its ultimate purpose, it had shown itself to be the greatest piece of European co-operative effort to solve common economic problems. It greatly increased mutual confidence and unity among European nations. All these gave rise to new hopes of closer European economic co-operation in the future.
(v) The Uniscan (1950):
In 1950 Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Britain had agreed to hold consultation in economic matters. Their union was called the Uniscan.
(vi) The Nordic Council (1953):
In 1953, the Scandinavian countries set up a consultative organization, the Nordic Council - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. They agreed to discuss tow to harmonize their economic policies in their annual meetings.
(vii) The European Coal and Steel Community (1952)
The proposal for the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community was put forward by Robert Schuman, the Foreign Minister of France. He thought that a merger of the French and German steel and coal industries would bring political and economic benefits to both France and Germany. Economically speaking, France was rich in iron ore while Germany was rich in coal. France had to import about half of her coal and coke from the Ruhr and Germany, half of her steel from Lorraine. Thus a merger of their coal and steel industries helped each other. Politically speaking, if the two basic industries of war - iron and coal - could be brought under common control by both French and German governments, the chance of war between these two countries could be greatly lessened. In the-past eighty years (1870-1950), France and Germany had fought three wars - each of these had brought colossal destruction to Europe.
West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, readily accepted Schuman's proposal. In 1952, the European Coal and Steel Community came into existence. The most important body of the Community was the High Authority. It had its headquarters in Luxemburg. The members of the Community were to surrender their control of coal and steel industries to the High Authority. This Authority was to plan coal and steel production, to ensure free flow of coal and steel and their products within the Community, to adjust their prices among member states, and to regulate their import and export. The ultimate goal of the High Authority was to establish a free market for coal and steel in the Community through the removal of tariff and quota barriers between the member-states.
From the start, the Plan was a great economic success. By pooling their basic industrial resources tinder a super-national High Authority, the member-states could produce coal and steel and their products more efficiently and at cheaper cost. Unnecessary trade competition in coal and steel products was done away with. Mutually profitable trade was encouraged. During the first five years (1952-7), trade in steel rose more than 150%, trade in coal more than 20%. Abundant supplies of coal and steel at reasonable prices helped the industrial boom of the late 1950's and 1960's. So successful was the Coal and Steel Community that its members were encouraged to seek further economic union. This led to the founding of the European Economic Community.
The formation of the High Authority in administering the Coal and Steel Community was also an epochal event in the history of European political union. The High Authority was a super-national body, free from any influence by the member governments. After the member states had given up the control of their two basic industries to the High Authority, its decisions were binding on all the coal and steel enterprises within the community. Since the European states were willing to surrender part of their sovereignty for common benefits, it had greatly encouraged the movement towards political unity in Europe.
[Go Top]
(viii) The European Economic Community (1958):
As has been mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the Coal and Steel Community was very successful in boosting European production and trade in steel and coal. In 1955, delegates re~ presenting Belgium, West Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Luxemburg met at Messina and agreed to form the European Economic Community.
Shortly afterwards, the Suez Crisis (1956) occurred, during which France and Britain were forced to give up their interests in the Canal area due to their own military weakness. France quickly came to the conclusion that European nations could have a say in world affairs only when they were militarily and economically strong. Thus France urged the formation of the European Economic Community as soon as possible.
In March, 1957, the six nations of the European Coal and Steel Community signed the Treaties of Rome, which were ratified without difficulties. They provided that on January 1, 1958, the European Economic Community (E.E.C.) and a European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) would come into being. (The Euratom was created for the purpose of making common efforts in atomic energy research. It aimed to prevent any shortage of energy in the near future; but atomic energy crisis did not occur and the energy of the Euratom was produced at excessive cost. Since Euratom was of little economic value to Europe, it was left aside by the European nations since 1961. It did little to promote European integration.)
The ultimate goal of the European Economic Community was the creation of a common market among the six member states, as a preliminary to the creation of a political federation. The European Economic Community agreed to a number of steps essential to the creation of a common market. The first step was a common tariff policy. There was to be a gradual reduction, and finally abolition of tariffs among the six member-states. The second step was a common scale of tariffs against goods of non-members. The third step was free movement within the Community of people and capital from one country to another and common policies for agriculture and transport. Other steps included the establishment of Investment Banks, the integration of the transport systems and the adoption of a common taxation policy.
By 1960, the Community had progressed satisfactorily towards its goals. Tariffs, which had been reduced to 60% below their 1957 level, were finally removed in July 1968. A common scale of tariffs against goods of non-members was also achieved in the meantime. Some progress was made in the free movement of capital and labour and in establishing a common agricultural policy. Unemployment in Italy fell as Italian workers could find jobs in West Germany and France. However, the progress towards integration in transport and the adoption of a common taxation policy were still slow.
Because many artificial barriers to economic growth had been removed and all available resources within the community could be employed in a more effective manner, there was a continuous and balanced economic expansion for all members of the European Economic Community in the 1960's. In general, average production for all members of the Community rose by 30% from 1958 to 1962. Trade within the Community between 1958 and 1962 rose by 96%. All the members received great economic benefits. They were quickly establishing a large free trade area which can rival with that of the United States and Soviet Union. (The United States and the Soviet Union had a market of 200 million people. The European Economic Community had a market of 170 million people.)
Despite the rapid economic progress of the European Economic Community, little progress was made in the 1961's towards political unity. Perhaps all national government disliked surrendering their sovereign power except in limited and specified areas - for example in tariffs, in coal and steel production. There was no sign that a United States of Europe would be formed in the near future.
[Go Top]
(ix) European Free Trade Association (1960):
Britain remained outside the European Economic Community. She had kept a large overseas empire in the past. She still retained a special relationship with the Commonwealth countries after the Second World War - for example, she had special tariff arrangements with the Commonwealth countries. Therefore, she understood that if she had to follow the European Economic Community policy of common tariffs against the non-member states, she had to sever her relations with the Commonwealth countries.
Faced with the rising external trade barriers of the six E.E.C. countries, Britain took the initiative in establishing the European Free Trade Association in 1960 with 6 other non-E.E.C. European countries - Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland. These countries together with Britain were known as the 'Outer Seven' whilst the members of the E.E.C. were known as the 'Inner Six'. The E.F.T.A. was basically a trading organization. They planned to remove all tariffs against each other in ten years; but unlike the E.E.C. they were not obliged to adopt common tariffs against non-members.
Very soon it was found out that the 'Outer Seven' could not compete with the 'Inner Six' in terms of economic production and growth. The first reason was that the 'Outer Seven' had just a population of 92 million people, while the Inner Six had about 170 million people. Thus the Inner Six had a larger market for the sale of their goods than the Outer Seven. The second reason was that the Inner Six were industrially advanced nations, while the Outer Seven, except Britain and Switzerland, were industrially quite backward. The third reason was that the Outer Seven were separated from one another by long distance, thus creating artificial barriers to the growth of trade. Britain realized that E.F.T.A. could not bring much economic benefits to her. Thus Britain applied for membership in the E.E.C. in the hope of improving her economic situation at home. After repeated rejection by the French government, Britain was allowed to join the E.E.C. with Denmark and Eire in 1973.
[Go Top]
Eastern Europe
The idea of economic co-operation and integration met with an equal response in eastern Europe. But in comparison with western Europe, the economic integration of eastern Europe was not so successful.
(i) First stage - 1945 to 1953:
(a) Economic ties within the eastern bloc:
From 1945 to 1948, the Soviet Union was able to put eastern Europe under the control of the pro-Soviet Union communist parties. Once the Soviet Union had established direct influence over her satellite countries, these countries, one after another, were to shape their economic structures according to the Russian model. It meant that they were to collectivize their agriculture, to develop heavy industries and to divert their trade from the West to the East.
(b) The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (January 1949):
After the formation of the O.E.E.C. in the West, the Soviet Union created the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), the counterpart of the O.E.E.C., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Rumania joined it in January 1949. Later it was joined by East Germany and Albania.
Yugoslavia had been expelled from the Cominform. She was also excluded from the Comecon. Tito had liberated Yugoslavia with 3M the Russian Red Army. He wanted to communize Yugoslavia by his own ideas, not according to the model of the Soviet Union. It was a sort of mixed economy. In agriculture, collective farms coexisted with privately-own farms. Workers exercised great control in factories but there was no nationalization of industries. A free market was also allowed for the buying and selling of many consumer goods.
The Council met only three times before Stalin's death in 1953. From 1949 to 1953, through the Council the Soviet Union was able to exploit industries of eastern European countries for her own economic needs. The industries of the satellites regardless of their own needs were turned over to heavy engineering. The Soviet Union also took part in a number of joint companies through which she controlled the shipping and mining industries of her satellites. The earnings of these industries were transferred to the Soviet Union annually. In addition, the Soviet Union compelled her satellites to deliver raw materials and semi-manufactured goods to the Soviet Union at excessively low prices. These satellites became poorer than before owing to Russian exploitation.. All these produced much discontent in eastern European countries. But the Soviet Union was able to force her satellites into submission by a policy of purges and oppression.
(ii) Second Stage - 1953 to 1960:
1953 was the year of Stalin's death. Nikita Khrushchev openly admitted in his speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party that socialism might grow up in different forms in its transition. The satellite countries could now enjoy more economic freedom.
Khrushchev decided to use the Council to increase industrial specialization in eastern Europe. Economic uniformity with Soviet Union was to be replaced by economic inter-dependence. Each country of eastern Europe would specialize in those sectors in which they possessed the greatest potential. In 1956 there was the formation of the Joint Nuclear Research Institute. East Germany gradually developed herself as the centre of the chemical products in the Russian sphere. Up to 1960, each eastern European country developed her economy in her own ways and the economic integration of eastern Europe was slight.
[Go Top]
http://www.funfront.net/hist/europe/econ-coop.htm -----------------
What determination and willpower and courage can do- The Halifax Explosion 1917 with help from our brothers and sisters of Boston....
Halifax Explosion:
The Aftermath and Relief Efforts (1917)
Actual footage
following the 1917 Explosion in Halifax, showing devastation and the relief
effort, beginning with activities the day after the Explosion and following the
reconstruction in the north end of Halifax, including the Hydrostone housing
project.
Filmmaker: W.G.
MacLaughlan
For more
information on the archives and these films, please visit: http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/ns...
--------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.