⚔️

US Mobilization Strategies in WWI

Apr 30, 2025

The US in WWI: Mobilizing for War

Financing the War

  • Key Mobilization Strategies:
    • Introduction of federal income tax by Congress.
    • Increase in personal and corporate income tax rates.
    • Establishment of new excise taxes.
    • Revenues increased from $930 million (1916) to $4.4 billion (1918).
    • Creation of Liberty Bonds raised over $20 million.
  • Comparison to Progressive/Imperial Era:
    • Shift from earlier policies, focusing on economic mobilization for war efforts.
    • Mixed approval; supportive of donations but cautious about increased taxes.
  • Primary Source Message:
    • Highlights significant economic changes from the Progressive/Imperial Era.
    • Government encouraged citizens to see it as their duty to support war efforts.

Selling the War

  • Key Mobilization Strategies:
    • Formation of the Committee on Public Information.
    • Use of "Four-Minute Men," films, and new divisions for propaganda.
  • Comparison to Progressive/Imperial Era:
    • Shift from societal reform to large-scale propaganda.
    • Skeptical approval due to government manipulation of public opinion.
  • Primary Source Message:
    • Shift from neutrality to active war participation.
    • Government shaped public opinion to support the war.

Industry and Labor

  • Key Mobilization Strategies:
    • Creation of the War Industry Board to mobilize resources.
    • Establishment of the National War Labor Board to maintain a strong labor force.
  • Comparison to Progressive/Imperial Era:
    • Increased government control over the economy and workforce.
    • Approval due to better working policies for labor workers.
  • Primary Source Message:
    • Direct government control ensured resource mobilization for war.
    • Managed production and labor to prevent strikes.

Civil Liberties in Wartime

  • Key Mobilization Strategies:
    • Implementation of military draft.
    • Espionage Act and Sedition Act to limit anti-war efforts.
    • Schenck v. United States case and "Clear and Present Danger" test.
  • Comparison to Progressive/Imperial Era:
    • More direct and restrictive role in managing labor and resources.
    • Partial approval; concern over the suppression of free speech.
  • Primary Source Message:
    • Government measures suppressed free speech using the Espionage and Sedition Acts.
    • Supreme Court's "Clear and Present Danger" justified limited speech threatening national security.