Literature Review Rohan Mathur
What is your view about the significance of WW2 in the recovery of the American
Economy after the 1929 Wall Street Crash?
There has been much debate surrounding the cause of recovery of the American economy after the 1929
Wall Street crash and the subsequent depression that followed. The cause of the disagreement arises due
to three interlinking factors: how the historians have defined their view of ‘recovery’, the breadth of study
used in their analysis and lastly the period in which their analysis was conducted. Kennedy sees that the
Second World War (WW2) allowed the American economy to recover from a decade of ‘economic and
social paralyses. Similarly, while Leuchtenberg also highlights the significance of WW2 in the recovery of
the American economy, he also goes on to mention how the New Deal measures would also have led the
country into prosperity even if there had been no war. In contrast, Brogan takes a different approach to
recovery displaying how the actions of Franklin Roosevelt transformed America; equipping it to meet the
worst shocks.
Kennedy
Writing in Freedom from Fear (1999), David M Kennedy, argues that it was the war that allowed for the
economic and social recovery of the country. He tracks American history from 1929 (The Wall Street
Crash) to 1945 (the end of WW2), while focusing on how the economic and social policies, told through
the experiences of the American citizens that lived through the period, caused the economy to recover and
prosper by 1945. Due to the nature of Kennedy’s interpretation, with it focusing on the effect on
Americans, he places more focus on the impact of social policy in comparison to economic policy. When
analyzing the strengths and shortcomings of the interpretation, these two factors will be dealt with
separately.
Kennedy makes the metaphorical argument that the ‘war had shaken the American people loose and freed
them from a decade of economic and social paralyses. His reasoning is that the increase in living standards
throughout the USA was a testament of joining WW2. Due to the dis-attachment from Europe, American
people had a different experience of the war; with country given an opportunity to prosper with the
externalities being insignificant compared to Europe and the Soviet Union. In doing so, claims Kennedy,
the war delivered on the promises of wartime advertisers and furthermore, ‘nearly banished the memory of
the Great Depression’
In his interpretation, Kennedy also goes on to mention the impact of WW2 on the unemployment rate. The
period of 1941-45 saw an increase in jobs due to a combination of: the increase in government spending
on defense and the availability of jobs left behind by those that had been called up for military service.
This consequently supports Kennedy’s argument in which he states, ‘by the war’s end, unemployment was
negligible’.
1
Literature Review Rohan Mathur
Leuchtenburg
Writing in ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932-40’, William E Leuchtenberg provides a
synthesis of the challenges Roosevelt and his advisors faced in the first two terms of the depression. It is
evident that the libertarian narrative taken by the author sees him in support of the New Deal policies.
However, this does not refrain him from being critical of certain policies. Moreover, this evenhanded
approach allows him to come to a clear conclusion about the strengths and shortcomings of the New Deal.
Due to the focus of this literature being from 1932 till 1940, there is little written about the impact of
America joining the Second World War regarding the recovery of the American economy. However,
Leuchtenberg provides a retrospect of the New Deal in which he evaluates the effect it had on American
recovery; considering events that took place after 1940. This is section is of great use in the enquiry in
question.
Similarly, to Kennedy, Leuchtenberg also takes the stance that the American economy was able to recover
fully was due to the country going the Second World War. However, while Kennedy places most of the
significance on this event, Leuchtenberg argues the importance of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and
even goes on to discuss the possibility of the New Deal measures leading the country into new ‘cycles of
prosperity; even I there had been no war.
In support of Kennedy’s argument, Leuchtenberg explicitly states that, ‘the unprecedented measures of the
New Deal did not suffice to repair the damage’. This statement not only corroborates with Kennedy but
also increases the strength of Kennedy’s argument, since Leuchtenberg has come to this conclusion after
studying the outcome of the New Deal.
Brogan
Unlike, Kennedy and Leuchtenberg who argue that the Second World War was the primary reason behind
the recovery of the American economy, Brogan, on the other hand, takes a different stance. Writing in
‘The History of the USA’, not only does Brogan’s work differ in its interpretation of events but also the
historical focus as well as period covered. It could be argued that the breadth approach taken by Brogan
has limited his outlook on the impact of the certain events that took place regarding America’s recovery
after the 1929 Wall Street Crash.
However, Brogan’s approach may differ due to the different weight given to different pieces of evidence.
While Kennedy provides a situational commentary through the viewpoint of American citizens, Brogan
outlines the political narrative. Moreover, this focus allows Brogan to emphasize the challenges faced by
Franklin D. Roosevelt. In doing so, he looks favorably on Roosevelt’s impact on the recovery of USA.
He goes on to detail the challenge of preserving American democracy, constitution, and capitalism before
underlining the fierce opposition he faced.
2
Literature Review Rohan Mathur
In short, the underlying focus of Brogan’s interpretation, is the challenges faced by Roosevelt in passing
the reforms through. Therefore, Brogan underpins the recovery of the American economy was due to the
foundations laid by the actions of Franklin Roosevelt.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the reason behind the recovery of the American economy differs
due to historians giving weight to different pieces of evidence. Moreover, there is a wide variety of
supplementary resources that not only support the argument made by the three primary historians but also
form their analysis and evaluation through a differing criteria.