Independent Automakers, Post-World War II, and Labor Unrest

Within the United States for a long period of time automobile production was dominated by "The Big Three" - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.  This dominance led to a nearly crushing control of the United States automobile market, however with the end of World War II an unusual combination of forces came together to create a strange temporary niche for smaller automobile manufacturers to break into the domestic United States market.  This fed a short early period in the 1950s where American consumers suddenly saw a collection of unusual and innovative cars appearing in the United States marketplace, until the Big Three were able to reassert their dominance.

From 1942 to 1945 the major labor unions within the United States entered into an informal bargain with the United States government, in exchange for no sanctioned strikes the federal government would support the "closed shop" model throughout the United States.  This compromise was seen as necessary to support the war production effort and unions throughout the United States worked to keep strikes to a minimum.  Workers however did go out on strike, usually small wildcat strikes that were not approved and not supported by the unions.  With the end of World War II in 1945 however President Truman decided that the United States economy needed to get back to normal as quickly as possible.  He drastically cut federal military spending and pushed for the United States domestic economy to transition back to civilian production.

Part of this shift to a post-war economy involved ending the high wages paid to workers that had been fueled by United States military spending.  This, in turn, provoked a massive wave of strikes that roiled the United States between 1945 to 1947.  This led to a period of unprecedented federal action against striking workers, including President Truman seizing entire industries and putting them under federal control to keep the economy functioning, using special emergency powers granted to fight World War II.  Hundreds of thousands of workers left their jobs, including mass strikes by organized automobile employees and steelworkers.  This, in turn, created shortfalls of domestic automobile production right after World War II, a period in which Americans were hungry for new cars, having just lived through a three year civilian car production drought and having ample funds saved from wartime higher rates of pay.

Where there is a shortage and a high level of demand, new suppliers will appear.  During the late 1940s even smaller independent car manufacturers had trouble shifting in new models, but the Big Three faced the same challenges.  So when the early 1950s rolled around an assortment of small manufacturers could offer a car hungry public something "different" at the same time the Big Three rolled out their new lines.  Sales numbers never came close to the Big Three but for a few magical years in the late 1940s and early 1950s, small car companies began to command noticeable market share.

Even some truly new ideas appeared, like the Tucker Torpedo above, which never really got off the ground but did catch a great number of people's eye.

A particularly odd addition to this early line-up, and a missed opportunity due to timing not being quite right, was the Nash Rambler.  This adorable little car was produced between 1950 to 1955 and captured a small segment of the American domestic market.  It occupied a new niche in the American market, fuel efficient, compact, economic cars built to high quality.  Unfortunately the majority of American car purchasers were looking for larger, more powerful, and more feature-laden automobiles at the time and the Nash Rambler didn't make the impact that was hoped.  Even after 1955, with the American Motors Corporation keeping the line alive for several more years, it just missed the mark.

That market segment didn't really explode until the 1960s, you might recognize that iconic car above as the major winner of that change in United States domestic car tastes.  Further challenges appeared in the 1970s with the oil price spikes and a shift to interest in Japanese compact cars.  It is interesting to note though that the Nash Rambler would have been ready for that market opening, if the timing had just been right. 

A niche carved out due, in large part, to the economic turmoil from 1945 to 1947 combined with a public crazy for new cars and willing to give the unusual a spin.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Volkswagen Beetle, the Tucker 48 Torpedo, the Nash Rambler, the Strike Waves of 1945-1946, the Presidency of Harry S Truman, and Automotive History of the United States post-World War II, this article on World War II and post-World War II labor unrest, and American 'Independent' Automakers, AMC to Willys 1945 to 1960 part of the "Those Were The Days" series by Veloce Books.

Independent Automakers, Post-World War II, and Labor Unrest

Within the United States for a long period of time automobile production was dominated by "The Big Three" - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.  This dominance led to a nearly crushing control of the United States automobile market, however with the end of World War II an unusual combination of forces came together to create a strange temporary niche for smaller automobile manufacturers to break into the domestic United States market.  This fed a short early period in the 1950s where American consumers suddenly saw a collection of unusual and innovative cars appearing in the United States marketplace, until the Big Three were able to reassert their dominance.

From 1942 to 1945 the major labor unions within the United States entered into an informal bargain with the United States government, in exchange for no sanctioned strikes the federal government would support the "closed shop" model throughout the United States.  This compromise was seen as necessary to support the war production effort and unions throughout the United States worked to keep strikes to a minimum.  Workers however did go out on strike, usually small wildcat strikes that were not approved and not supported by the unions.  With the end of World War II in 1945 however President Truman decided that the United States economy needed to get back to normal as quickly as possible.  He drastically cut federal military spending and pushed for the United States domestic economy to transition back to civilian production.

Part of this shift to a post-war economy involved ending the high wages paid to workers that had been fueled by United States military spending.  This, in turn, provoked a massive wave of strikes that roiled the United States between 1945 to 1947.  This led to a period of unprecedented federal action against striking workers, including President Truman seizing entire industries and putting them under federal control to keep the economy functioning, using special emergency powers granted to fight World War II.  Hundreds of thousands of workers left their jobs, including mass strikes by organized automobile employees and steelworkers.  This, in turn, created shortfalls of domestic automobile production right after World War II, a period in which Americans were hungry for new cars, having just lived through a three year civilian car production drought and having ample funds saved from wartime higher rates of pay.

Where there is a shortage and a high level of demand, new suppliers will appear.  During the late 1940s even smaller independent car manufacturers had trouble shifting in new models, but the Big Three faced the same challenges.  So when the early 1950s rolled around an assortment of small manufacturers could offer a car hungry public something "different" at the same time the Big Three rolled out their new lines.  Sales numbers never came close to the Big Three but for a few magical years in the late 1940s and early 1950s, small car companies began to command noticeable market share.

Even some truly new ideas appeared, like the Tucker Torpedo above, which never really got off the ground but did catch a great number of people's eye.

A particularly odd addition to this early line-up, and a missed opportunity due to timing not being quite right, was the Nash Rambler.  This adorable little car was produced between 1950 to 1955 and captured a small segment of the American domestic market.  It occupied a new niche in the American market, fuel efficient, compact, economic cars built to high quality.  Unfortunately the majority of American car purchasers were looking for larger, more powerful, and more feature-laden automobiles at the time and the Nash Rambler didn't make the impact that was hoped.  Even after 1955, with the American Motors Corporation keeping the line alive for several more years, it just missed the mark.

That market segment didn't really explode until the 1960s, you might recognize that iconic car above as the major winner of that change in United States domestic car tastes.  Further challenges appeared in the 1970s with the oil price spikes and a shift to interest in Japanese compact cars.  It is interesting to note though that the Nash Rambler would have been ready for that market opening, if the timing had just been right. 

A niche carved out due, in large part, to the economic turmoil from 1945 to 1947 combined with a public crazy for new cars and willing to give the unusual a spin.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Volkswagen Beetle, the Tucker 48 Torpedo, the Nash Rambler, the Strike Waves of 1945-1946, the Presidency of Harry S Truman, and Automotive History of the United States post-World War II, this article on World War II and post-World War II labor unrest, and American 'Independent' Automakers, AMC to Willys 1945 to 1960 part of the "Those Were The Days" series by Veloce Books.

1920 National Defense Act, Tank Developments, and World War II (Why U.S. WW II tanks kind of sucked)

One of the unusual stories from the interwar period (1919 - 1941 for the United States) is the passing of the National Defense Act of 1920.  Sponsored by Julius Kahn this piece of legislation reorganized the United States Army and modified the rules on procurement and acquisitions, aiming to decentralize the process.  The National Defense Act of 1920, to my eye, has its greatest impact in how it influenced the development of tanks in the United States between World War I and World War II, due to a key technical requirement of the bill, that tanks were to be subordinated to the needs of the Army.  During World War I the United States had played with the idea of a separate Tanks Corps but after the war decided to focus in on tanks serving in an infantry support roll.

This, frankly, annoyed two leading United States military figures, Patton and Eisenhower, because it would strip tanks of their mobility potential and instead put them on the path of being rolling infantry support vehicles.  Congress however was firm on this point and also reduced the available budget for tank development to a bare minimum, forcing the army to pour its development dollars in the 1920s into vehicles like the one pictured above, the M2, a slow, under armed, mobile gun platform with an emphasis on machine guns to cut down advancing infantry over heavy cannons to destroy other tanks.

However Douglas MacArthur was made Chief of Staff of the United States Army and MacArthur wanted the United States Army to focus on being a faster, more mobile, and more nimble force.  He also wanted to develop tanks that focused on mobility and anti-tank capacity over lumbering along behind the infantry with a wad of machine guns.  But Congress had forbidden any development of tanks except by the Army, so what was a newly appointed general to do?

As it turns out, engage in some legal trickery.  The top image, and the one just above, are of respectively the T7 Combat Car and the M1 Combat Car.  Nearly identical to tanks they were developed by the United States Cavalry and use of development dollars was permitted because MacArthur told the Congress, with a straight face, that these weren't tanks.  No, these were "combat cars" - use they had armor, they had treads, and they had guns, but they were "cars" not tanks.  In fact the T7 Combat Car pictured at the top was built so it could be converted from treads to rubber tires, so it could flexibly roll along paved roads and then switch to an off-road tracked configuration.

This focus by Congress on cost-savings, and pinching military development funds during the interwar period, did help reduce the federal budget but it also led to the United States entering World War II with some, speaking frankly, really shitty tanks.  What you see above is the M3 Medium Tank, the Grant, which was obsolete at the start of the war and featured the terrible design flaw of many western tanks of the period, putting the heavy armament in a fixed side turret because fully rotating top turrets were hard to make work well.  The problem with this design is if your enemy happens to have a tank with a moving turret they have a better chance of lining up your non-cannon side for a kill shot.  (Note the awesome side mounted machine guns though.)

The United States did eventually hammer the issues out, with the design of the M4 Sherman, but it was made under pressure of war.  The United States also never really got into the business of real heavy tanks until World War II was nearly over, leading to some very lopsided tank engagements in 1944 through 1945 with the German army.

But I remain convinced it all hinges on the 1920 National Defense Act and how Congress shifted the focus of the United States military towards a fun-sized cost-saving military plan.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on U.S. Tank Development History, the 1920 National Defense Act, the T7 Combat Car, the M1 Combat Car, and U.S. Army Military history journal entry on the Birth of the Armored Forces

The Japanese Oil Embargo - History and Ambiguity of Sources

It is always a bit of a thrill to read an article that covers a facet of the 1930s or 1940s which I'm not aware of, which made this Salon article on the 1941 United States oil embargo against Japan fascinating.  To summarize for those unfamiliar with it, in 1941 before the Pearl Harbor attack United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt imposed a freeze on Japanese assets within the United States, which would require permits to be issued prior to any sale of goods taking place to Japan.  As Japan relied heavily upon United States oil exports to meet its fuel needs, particularly for its military, this action represented a significant risk to Japan's ability to continue its on-going war in China at the time.

The ambiguity comes in regarding how the oil embargo was imposed and the role of Dean Acheson, pictured above, in creating that oil embargo.  As Assistant Secretary of State at the time Acheson had an unusual opportunity to shape United States policy, while the President was in Newfoundland having a secret conference with Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, Acheson had near total authority to decide if any licenses would be issued to Japan to allow the purchase of oil.  He chose to not issue any such licenses, imposing an effective oil embargo on Japan and starting the chain of concerns that led to the Pearl Harbor attack on the United States in December 1941.

The question that needs to be asked though is this - did FDR know that Acheson was going to take this action and allowed it or was he surprised by the action and left it in place to avoid appearing weak?

This is not an easy question to answer, several sources claim that Acheson acted on his own and FDR was not involved in the choice, he wanted to avoid war.  However one source I checked claimed that FDR did know and, more critically, a close friend of FDR's was in the State Department and had access to warn FDR if Acheson had been acting without approval.

My research into FDR has shown when it came to foreign policy he seemed to like having a distance between himself and certain actions, but was very willing to engage when needed in quite aggressive action.  The theory that seems most likely to me is FDR was aware of the oil embargo being implemented by this indirect means and supported it, to see what impact it would have on Japan.  If it turned out to be far too dangerous he'd be able to then retract what Acheson did and state Acheson had gone "too far" with his authority.

But we won't ever know - this was one of the items that there simply aren't clean records or sources to document.  Considering this policy can be directly linked to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, it has relevance.

Sources:  Salon article on this topic, Wikipedia on Dean Acheson, State Department page on Acheson, Google Books scan of "An Introduction to the Causes of War" by Greg Cashman & Leonard C. Robinson, Google Books scan of "The History of American Foreign Policy from 1895" by Jerald A. Combs

World War II and STDs - the United States government versus "Loose Women"

The United States was involved in World War II from December 1941 through August 1945, with United States fighting forces engaged in conflicts in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe.  The United States though began expanding its military forces in 1940 with a new Selective Service Act and naval expansion.  With the expansion of the United States military, followed by war-time deployments, the United States government was deeply concerned about the risk posed by sexually transmitted diseases/venereal diseases to its deployed troops.  A particular threat was posed by the "dynamic duo" of syphilis and gonorrhea, which in the pre-penicillin period took considerable resources and time to treat.

To combat this threat the United States military undertook an aggressive training and propaganda campaign aimed at educating United States soldiers and sailors to avoid sexual contact with women.  The overall tone of the campaign is well captured by the posters above, with an emphasis on targeting women as the key vector for infection.  The United States military worked to emphasize to its enlisted personnel that infected women were something to be avoided and the best method to do so was to avoid all sexual contact entirely.  Failing that, the United States military issued prophylactics to its soldiers with detailed instruction kits, along with post-sexual contact disinfection kits.

Beyond posters however the United States military also issued its soldiers with a standard pamphlet upon enlistment titled "Sex Hygiene and Venereal Disease" (link here) which both reflects the outlook of the times and includes messages aimed at protecting female chastity and purity by avoiding STDs.

Some choice quotes:

"It's perfectly normal for you to want to go with girls-just as normal as to get hungry or sleepy.  Women have the same desire to go with me.  This attraction for each other is due to the sex glands.  It's what keeps the human race alive."

"Just because you have this desire is no reason why you must give in to it.  Sex relations should be kept for marriage.  Between people who aren't married they often lead to shame, sorrow, and disease.  The public knows this so well that laws forbid sex relations between persons not married to each other.  Good morals limit these sex relations to marriage."

My personal favorite though:

"You wouldn't like to thin that the girl you marry had been used by other men.  Or that your sweetheart or sister was letting herself be used by someone.  You feel a duty to protect her honor.  If you want the girl you love and respect to keep her body pure and free from disease, you owe it to her to keep yours the same way.  Nothing is more unfair than to expect her to control her normal desires while you give in to yours.  Americans pride themselves on fair play.  A good soldier plays fair.  Will you?"

A combination of patriotism, sexism, and yet a tiny acknowledgment that women have sexual urges as well.  It sums up the 1940s in the United States so well to my eye.

Apparently the "Black Widow" image was a favorite of artists making these posters.  Give it a search sometime online, there are hundreds of images repeating the same themes.  However I'll close with my favorite product of this period, a film simply titled "USS VD:  The Ship of Shame" - it was a real film made in 1942 that has a very basic plot.  A group of sailors enjoys shore leave and has a "good time" with some local prostitutes and they all catch an STD.

The ship sails and the ships medic has no end of trouble with sailors reporting in with illness and a general collapse of morale and the sailors ability to fulfill their duties.  Eventually the destroyer meets up with a Japanese submarine.  The sailors nearly fail in their duties due to sore penises and swollen testicles but fortunately American pluckiness wins the war!

Also the film apparently contains multiple montages of highly infected penises to help remind sailors watching the film what happens if you get laid in port.

Check out some non-infected penis moments from this gem on YouTube.  (Link here)

Sources:  Wikipedia entry on World War II and military sexual health education, Mother Jones article on World War II and STD posters, the War Departments World War II sexual hygiene booklet, IMDB entry and Bad Movies entry on the USS VD: Ship of Shame

19th Immigrants to America - the wrong message for a modern election

So the image above has been making the rounds on Facebook and appears to be showing a queue of immigrants, either in the late 19th or early 20th century, passing through Ellis Island or an equivalent port of entry into the United States.  The tagline at the bottom says that these immigrants "never burned our flag, respected American culture, cared about America."  With the top line it implicates that immigrants entering the United States in the 21st century, illegally, don't equal the same "higher quality" immigrants from a cultural protection perspective than these older immigrants.

First off, wow, the levels of cultural perspective shift held in that image, especially considering the widespread anti-immigrant feelings in the United States in the early 20th century specifically targeted at the above groups of immigrants is shocking.  But I am going to let that go for now, because the reality behind this text line is also wrong.

This image if from 16 September 1920, and is from the bombing of Wall Street, an act of revolutionary violence which was, most likely, carried about by Anarchists attempting to disrupt the United States economy and political system.  Although the United States government never formally determined who was responsible for the bombing attack, most evidence at the time and in later investigations points to a group of Italian immigrants, the Galleanists, a dedicated revolutionary group of Italian anarchists and followers of Luigi Galleani.  This group was mostly made up of Italian immigrants and most certainly did not respect United States culture or care about America as it was in the 1920s, it was dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government and American society.

The above bombing by the way killed a total of thirty-eight people and was done with a massive explosive device planted in a horse-drawn carriage.  It was detonated at noon to ensure maximum carnage.  (The physical damage to the Wall Street building was left in place and can be seen today.)

The center point of this particular movement is pictured above, Luigi Galleani, an anarchist from Italy who was expelled from multiple European nations, and the Middle East, before arriving in the United States.  He traveled the U.S. East Coast with a goal of motivating other anarchists, spreading revolutionary fervor among the working class, and supporting striking workers.  He was a believer in "propaganda of the deed" - carrying out revolutionary violence to inspire others to join in.  His followers are responsible for waves of assassination attempts (some successful), bombings, mass poisonings, and building a support network for anarchist activists through the early 20th century.  (His newsletter was also a source of an early form of "doxing" - printing home addresses of leading capitalists to inspire his readers to direct action.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it came to immigrant activism, throughout that period Socialists, Communists, and other political dissidents came to the United States to spread their ideas and make a strong attempt at revolution within the United States.  The Anarchists happen to stand out  in United States history because they were more colorful than other efforts and far more aggressive in the use of violent tactics.

But broadly there is no magical period of dutiful, loyal immigrants who came to the United States that can be contrasted with the immigrants of today.  Even in the late 19th through early 20th century immigrant boom in the United States you had efforts within that community to deliberately destroy the society and government of the United States, with any eye towards forging something new.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Wall Street bombing of 1920 and Luigi Galleani