Social change between 1914-1955, was it war that brought about change or was it

Position:Home>History> Social change between 1914-1955, was it war that brought about change or was it

Question:

Alastair Reid, ‘World War 1 and the working class in Britain’, 1988, pp!.21–3
Believes that war itself did have important consequences, but stresses there are limits 'quality of social relationships' altered little (no equal rights, men/ women, workers/employees)!.
Reid's explanation, which historian Aurthur Marwick agrees with, is the attention drawn to war itself, not to structural, ideological or political factors!. !.!.!.!. That the under-privileged groups (workers or women for example) participate in the war effort, this very participation tends to improve their social position!.
If for example the women's movement is taken into consideration, it was much stronger Pre1!. In France for example the census figures for women in the workforce can be misleading as what tended to happen post-war were shifts into different employment sectors (tertiary) for women, so James F!. McMillan believes the war did not increase number in workforce just a redistribution of labour!.
Do you think that war accelerated social change rather than brought it about!?
Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

By 1914 all the major ingredients of what we call a 'modern' world were in place, and development was continuing!. In technical matters, we had reliable and fast transport and communications and mechanised production; socially, the position of women was altering towards greater equality; education, even higher education, of the poor (both sexes) was gaining ground; economically, the working class was organising and gaining power!. The war did nothing to upset these trends!. The same was true of the second (1939-45) war!.

However the speed of change altered!. In some areas - women at work, the science and technology of flight, electronics etc!. - the two wars speeded up development!. In other areas, things regarded as desirable were put on hold, perhaps for financial reasons, perhaps because the hiatus gave opponents a chance to drag their feet!. One example: before the 1WW it was clear, even to those who opposed the idea, that the extension of what we now call the 'welfare state' would go ahead!. We already had panel doctors and pensions; it was only a matter of time before more humane provision for the unemployed and the crippled, together with extension of secondary education and freer access to the universities would follow!. None of this happened - or not until 1945!.

So, the effects of a war are not always, or usually, simple - especially when you take into account the economic effects of war inflation and the inevitable post-war depression which complicate things!.

Hope this helps!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Definitely accelerated change!. Things like the Agricultural Depression at the end of the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution meant than change would happen - but probably not as it did, nor as rapidly - nor would it necessarily have involved the loss of the Empire, for example!.

The women's movement was a specail deal negotiated by the Suffragettes with LLoyd George - and clearly not something that would have happened without the Great War!. Similarly the disruption caused by conscription gave labour another chance at power and one which they were able to enact several important reforms, not least the introduction of the NHS, when peace returned!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Many people from the farming communities joined the armed forces to escape agricultural poverty!. War had a devastating effect on rural life as communities were destroyed, death affected everyone suddenly as all able bodied people were eventually called up to fight and many died!.Www@QuestionHome@Com