What ultimately ended the Great Depression: The New Deal or war mobilization?

 

The worst economic crisis to hit the United States in its history was the Great Depression. This came about following the market crash of 1929, which resulted in a scenario where a considerable number of individuals not only lost their life savings, but there was also high unemployment. The unemployment levels were so high that they hit the double digits, with the result being that there was the promotion of a scenario of great uncertainty. It is pertinent to note that almost a fifth of the American population could not find work immediately prior to the Second World War; a sign of the highly economic realities of the period. However, it is important to consider that this problem was handled in a diversity of ways, including through the promotion of a scenario where there was the need to ensure that the economy returned to normalcy. This came about through Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s move towards greater involvement of the federal government in the economic welfare of individuals (Corry 216). His New Deal was therefore essential because it ensured that a path towards a return to economic prosperity for the nation was set. However, it was only following the beginning of the Second World War that the steps that he had taken began to bear fruit. This paper makes the argument that the end of the Great Depression was brought about because of both the New Deal and the war mobilization, which stimulated the economy.

The Great Depression can be considered one of the most significant defining moments in the history of the United States. This is because the people of the country were forced to endure some of the worst economic crises in their history. The New Deal by Roosevelt played a critical role during this period because it was designed to ensure that Americans were put back to work (Feiler 141-42). This step proved critical because it redefined the role of the federal government in the lives of individuals since most members of society came to see it as holding the answers to their economic problems. The attitude towards government was therefore changed significantly since there was the belief that it could do more to ensure that the population was secured against economic hardships. The significance of this situation can be seen through the way that there was an increase in expectations concerning how the government responded to the plight of the working class Americans. It is also noteworthy that the New Deal was also concerned with the plight of racial minorities, children, and women, which was revolutionary at the time (Weir 157). The New Deal was therefore critical when it came to the economy because its major focus was on increasing the role of government within it.

While the New Deal ensured that a basis was set up for economic recovery, it was the mobilization for the Second World War that allowed for the Depression to come to an end. This is especially the case considering that Roosevelt saw the need for the nation to be mobilized following the beginning of the war between the Allies and Axis powers in 1939 (Koistinen 443). The neutrality of the United States allowed the nation to mobilize without too much interference, with the result being that there was an increase in employment rates while at the same time ensuring that the effects of the Depression were significantly reduced. However, it is noteworthy that while the effects of the Depression were reduced by the New Deal, it finally came to an end when Roosevelt brought the United States into the war on the side of the Allies following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. This was a move that allowed for the promotion of American primacy across the world at both the military and economic levels. The United States was able to bring about full employment through the process of conscription while at the same time allowing women to join the workforce for the first time. Therefore, the social changes and reforms that were introduced in the New Deal came into effect.

The economy had already begun to take off prior to the United States joining the Second World War. This is especially the case when one considers that as the New Deal was taking hold, the economic growth in the country had already reached the double-digits (“The New Deal Worked”). This policy had essentially seen considerable success as there was the need to make sure that there was the promotion of the interests of the people over those of the government and big business. However, it is pertinent to note that there was the promotion of a scenario where the government sought to achieve a level of balance when it came to the budget as well as the attainment of the goal of bringing about social reforms to aid the population. The mobilization for the war was therefore critical in making sure that there was the attainment of this goal because it allowed for full employment while at the same time helping the economy to grow considerably. Through a combination of these processes, it became possible for the national economic output as well as the income of individuals to recover significantly. This was to such an extent that when the United States joined the Second World War, its economy had attained full recovery and had actually become one of the biggest in the world.

Thus, while on the surface, the mobilization for the Second World War brought an end to the Great Depression, it is important not to discount the New Deal. This is because the recovery of the economy from the Depression begun during the New Deal and the latter set the stage upon which effective mobilization for war was founded (Heale 63). In this way, there was the promotion of a scenario where when the war began; millions of Americans were sent to the military while the rest were employed in jobs related to defense. This ensured that there was the enhancement of economic effectiveness because the government was able to direct economic growth through its sponsorship of a diversity of sectors that were related to the mobilization. The Great Depression was therefore brought to an end to such an extent that there was the promotion of greater economic effectiveness as well as a foundation, based on the New Deal, to promote American leadership across the world when the war ended. The New Deal and the mobilization played important roles in bringing an end to the Depression that had caused so much devastation to the society since there was massive unemployment and economic uncertainty.

In conclusion, the above analysis is one that supports the argument that the end of the Great Depression was brought about because of both the New Deal and the war mobilization, which stimulated the economy. These two policies, working hand in hand, played a significant role in making sure that there was the establishment of stable conditions that not only stimulated economic growth, but also allowed for a significant reduction in unemployment, which had been one of the biggest issues during the Great Depression. The issue of economic recovery was therefore handled well between the New Deal and mobilization since there was the establishment of government involvement in the social and economic activities of society. Not only was government seeking to ensure that a safety net was established for the sake of securing the working class, but it also undertook to bring about a remedying of the economic problems that were plaguing the country following the Great Depression. Through this process, it became possible for the government to undertake programs that aided economic growth. The latter ensured that one of the most significant defining moments in the history of the United States, namely the Great Depression, was brought to an end. The latter was to such an extent that the economy had already begun to take off prior to the United States joining the Second World War. Thus, the New Deal policies and the war mobilization enabled the United States to get over the Depression and instead attain new growth that allowed it to become one of the most economically powerful countries in the world.

The Silk Road

 

The concept of globalization is often considered to be one that came about at recent periods of human history. This is especially the case when one looks at the way that it has become quite popular in recent decades and has been used to describe the economic, social, and political interconnectivity that has become prevalent in the world today. However, some historians have come to believe that globalization actually appeared in the late 1400s, which is a belief that does not bear any weight especially when one considers that what can be termed as globalization was actually taking place centuries prior. This can be seen through the Silk Road, which was a trade route that connected Asia and Europe and saw goods transferred to and from these regions. The significance of the latter cannot be underestimated because it allows for the contemplation of the Silk Road being an early example of globalization that allowed for considerable political, economic, and cultural influences to take hold. This paper considers the viability of the Silk Road as an early example of globalization through an analysis of stories from Life Along the Silk Road by Susan Whitfield.

The Silk Road was able to connect individuals from a diversity of cultures, which ensured that there were political influences along this trade route. This is especially the case when one considers the Merchant’s Tale, which is one that describes the manner through which the Silk Road was instrumental in ensuring that the cultural influences of the Middle East reached Central Asia. This is seen through the way that Islam was not only able to spread rapidly across the trade route, but following the Umayyad conquest of parts of Central Asia, there was the promotion of a scenario where the political practices of the Arab conquerors was adopted, as seen through the way that a considerable number of individuals in the region converted to Islam as a means of making sure that they escaped paying the jizya tax that was mandatory for non-Muslims. The title character of the story, Nanaivandak’s mother is described as being a staunch Zoroastrian in an environment within which Islam had come to supercede it, and “continued to attend a Zoroastrian temple in the city with its eternally burning fire” (Whitfield 23).

Another story that is pertinent is the Soldier’s Tale, which is an account of the character Seg Lhaton, a soldier from Tibet. Tibet at the time controlled a significant part of the Silk Road, especially between Sogdiana and China. This is especially the case when it comes to the way that the Tibetans and the Chinese had fought over territory in the region as a means of making sure that there is the promotion of a scenario where they could gain control over the Silk Road, where there was the establishment of forts by the Tibetans, and “soldiers’ families were often resident in the forts” (Whitfield 47). Furthermore, the connections between the Chinese, Tibetans, and Uighurs were therefore not only trade related, but also brought about a situation where wars took place between them. It is therefore significant that control over the trade routes along the Silk Road during this period can be related to the manner through which trade disputes tend to come up in the modern globalized world.

Another aspect of globalization that is seen on the Silk Road is in the Shipmaster’s Tale. This is one that considers the manner through which Tazena, a shipmaster, ends up becoming a part of an expedition to Yemen. This is an individual that lives within a nation that is deeply connected to the global economy because of the presence of individuals in the Axumite kingdoms from a diversity of regions. There is a Greek traveler, “Cosmas Indicopleustes—so called becauseof his voyage to India—was visiting Adulis at the time” (Whitfield 10), and there are interactions with the Jewish kingdom in Yemen, among many other incidents. The latter is important because it provides a means through which to best understand the position of the Silk Road as having been an important avenue through which globalization could take place effectively.

In conclusion, the discussion above has made an analysis of the viability of the Silk Road as an early example of globalization through an analysis of stories from Life Along the Silk Road by Susan Whitfield. The connections that existed between the nations along the Silk Road were significant because they allowed for the cultural, political, and economic interactions between the states involved. This is especially the case when one considers the stories above, which provide a vivid depiction of the way that the personal lives of individuals from different times and cultures that existed before the 15^th century, were influenced by the presence of the Silk Road. Therefore, the Silk Road can be considered to have been an early form of globalization whose influence cannot be underestimated because its presence was what inspired the next phase of globalization that begun in the late 1400s with the advent of European exploration.

Cleopatra: The Last Queen of Egypt

 Cleopatra VII was born into the Ptolemaic Dynasty, a dynasty of Macedonian origins that was descended from Ptolemy, one of the generals of Alexander the Great. This dynasty had taken over rulership over Egypt following the death of Alexander in the 4^th century BC and had been well established in their new home for centuries (Roller 15). Cleopatra was a unique individual for her time because she not only became the first and only female ruler of the dynasty, but she also forged alliances of political convenience with such prominent Romans as Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony that saw her hold onto power in Egypt until her death in 30 BC.

When her father, Ptolemy XII died in 51 BC, he left his throne to Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy XIII, who were 18 and 10 respectively. The years of their join rule saw Egypt undergo a number of crises including floods and famine as well as economic problems (Roller 53). Furthermore, political problems developed between the siblings as the two ended up establishing their own factions at court. However, because Ptolemy XIII had greater support, he was able to ensure that he established greater dominance, resulting in a scenario where Cleopatra was forced to flee to Syria. In Syria, she assembled an army that was intended to defeat that of her brother and secure her the throne. She returned with the army and faced off against her brother at Pelusium in 48 BC, although the battle seems to have ended in a stalemate (Roller 59). This significance of this period can be described as showing the considerable ambition that was displayed by Cleopatra as she fought to gain a throne that had previously never been held by a woman in her own dynasty. It suggests that she saw herself as having been a more competent ruler than her younger brother and was willing to take on decisive action as a means of ensuring that her ambitions were brought to fruition.

The timely intervention of Julius Caesar in the conflict proved critical for Cleopatra. This is because as she was presiding over a civil war with her brother, there was a civil war between two of Rome’s greatest generals of the time, Pompey and Caesar. When Pompey sought refuge in Egypt, he ended up being killed on the orders of Ptolemy XIII (Clauss 1). Caesar, in pursuit of Pompey, eventually came to Egypt, and it was here that he met and began a romantic relationship with Cleopatra. Cleopatra took advantage of the situation by essentially persuading Caesar to fight for her cause, which resulted in his providing his military might as well as skills as a general to not only gain victory over her brother at the Battle of the Nile, but also secure for herself the throne of Egypt. In this way, Cleopatra became the sole ruler of Egypt and to further secure her position, made sure to continue her relationship with Caesar. She thus tied her fate and the fate of her kingdom to that of Caesar and by extension, to Rome because it seems that Roman influence in Egypt began during this time and would continue for centuries after.

Cleopatra’s relationship with Caesar ensured that her position on the Egyptian throne was secured. She therefore followed Caesar to Rome and only returned to Egypt following his assassination. She would later give birth to Caesar’s son, Ptolemy XV Caesar, better known as Caesarion, in 47 BC and when she returned to Egypt had him made her co-ruler. It seems that Cleopatra, following Caesar’s death, felt that she was not secure enough and because of this, when Mark Anthony called on her to answer questions concerning Caesar’s assassination, she readily accepted and would soon begin a romantic relationship with him (Brown 66). While Anthony saw an opportunity in Cleopatra to have the military and financial support to gain the Roman state for himself, she saw in him an opportunity to not only secure herself in Egypt against his rival, Gaius Octavius, Caesar’s great nephew, but also a means of regaining the eastern Egyptian Empire that encompassed parts of Syria and Lebanon. Through this relationship, Cleopatra would end up having three of Anthony’s children, including Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene II, who were twins, and Ptolemy Philadelphus. Anthony and Cleopatra planned to ensure that their children would end up ruling the eastern parts of the Roman state as well as Persia, which they intended to conquer (Strootman 1).

However, the rivalry between Mark Anthony and Octavian over control of the Roman state would prove to be Cleopatra’s downfall. This is especially the case when one considers that she had hoped to have her son, Caesarion, succeed Caesar as ruler of the Roman state prior to the latter’s untimely death. Moreover, she continued to push the claim that Caesarion was his father’s legitimate heir and not Octavian (Eidinow 263); a factor that was not viewed favorably by the latter. Thus, when Octavian handed Anthony a crushing defeat, he committed suicide, believing that Cleopatra herself was also dead. However, Cleopatra herself was alive and she also committed suicide by having herself bitten by an asp; the truth of which will never been known because of the suspicious circumstances under which the events took place. Cleopatra and Anthony were buried in a yet to be discovered location and soon after, Octavian completed the conquest of Egypt and its integration into the Roman Empire. Caesarion, on the other hand, was drowned in the Nile on the orders of Octavian because despite Caesar not having officially acknowledged him as his son (Roller 70), he was still the main rival that he had following the death of Anthony. In this way, Cleopatra’s and her dynasty’s rule over Egypt came to an end.

In conclusion, the legacy of Cleopatra is one that has remained quite prominent, especially in Western culture. This is because it was one that was unique for her time since she proved herself to be an ambitious individual who ended up not only gaining the throne, which would have normally have remained in the hands of her brother as the real power, but she also read the current regional political situation and took advantage of it. This is the reason why apart from making use of her own efforts, as seen when she raised an army in Syria, she was able to forge alliances with the powerful Romans, first with Caesar and later with Anthony and in the course of her actions essentially managed to change history. Her tragic end does not disqualify her achievements and it is for this reason that she continues to be remembered in the modern world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Brown, John Russell. Antony and Cleopatra. Macmillan, 1968. Print.

Clauss, Manfred. "Cleopatra Vii." The Encyclopedia of Ancient History  (2013). Print.

Eidinow, John SC. "Dido, Aeneas, and Iulus: Heirship and Obligation in" Aeneid" 4." The Classical Quarterly 53.1 (2003): 260-67. Print.

Roller, Duane W. Cleopatra: A Biography. Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

Strootman, Rolf. "Queen of Kings: Cleopatra Vii and the Donations of Alexandria."  (2010). Print.