Sunday, June 10, 2012

Compare and Contrast the successes and failures of the Domestic Policies of Mussolini and Hitler



After WWI, many countries were unsatisfied with the results of the Treaty of Versailles, amongst them Italy and Germany, both of which felt they had been humiliated and cheated. Riding on these feelings of national humiliation, two leaders under the banner of Fascism rose to power. Through their domestic policies, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini campaigned for autarky, uniting their people and rising again as a world power, all the while instilling their ideologies into their people and establishing themselves as a cult figure; yet the extent of their success in these policies and what they aimed to achieve from them is what differentiates the two. This essay will attempt to compare and contrast the difference between these two leaders and their successes and failures in domestic policy, hence gaining a better understanding of how their actions accelerated the path towards World War II. The degree of success or failure of each respective policy is my own opinion based on my assessment of the issues, therefore different claims can be made.


At the closure of WWI, both Germany and Italy’s economy was in shambles, poverty rampant, and the people overridden with a sense of shame and anger towards their leaders. It is at this low point where both Hitler and Mussolini came into power, announcing to the world a new doctrine known as Fascism. With promises of a revitalization of their economy and jobs for the thousands of unemployed, the people rallied to their side. To accomplish this, both leaders strived for Autarky, or self-sufficiency, to make sure that their countries could support themselves and never depend on foreign assistance, and the means to do this was by becoming a military state.
The first step in this endeavor was to reestablish their armed forces, which once conscripted eliminated a vast amount of the unemployment rate. From there, every other decision to better their economy was based on militaristic needs.
The second step for the leaders to achieve Autarky was to become agriculturally sufficient. Now that they had the military, they needed to feed their troops as well as protect their country from potential blockades (which proved to be fatal for the Germans in WWI) by becoming less reliant on foreign import. To achieve this, they set up a series of laws that would help the agricultural industry.
Mussolini focused a lot of energy on the production of grain, and although the production did rise drastically to the point almost being self-sufficient in the production of grain, all other agricultural production was disregarded, leading not only to an imbalance in the Italian people’s diet, but also a need to export other crops and animal products. Known as the Battle for Grain (1925), this policy failed to a certain extent, because although they were self sufficient in grains, this unbalance was greatly felt in the lower Italian classes, as well as hindering his overall aim for autarky.
Like his Italian counterpart, Hitler also invested a lot of effort in agriculture with plans such as the Reich Food Estate (1933), which regulated prices and production quotas or the Entitled Farm Law (1933), which supported production by giving land to Aryan peasants. Proving to be much more successful than Mussolini’s plan, it also revealed his racial and anti-Semitic ideals, since only those who were considered pure Arians could receive land under the Entitled Farm Law.
            From these points in agriculture, we can see that although they both want to better their economy through its agriculture and focusing on military goals, Hitler has already started his racial campaigns, something that is not a part of Mussolini’s agenda. 

Next was to establish themselves as strong industrial powers. They needed to produce weapons for their soldiers, and therefore allow factories to go back to work, and to accomplish this both nations set forth laws to further implement the idea of Autarky.
In Germany, Hitler implemented the New Plan (1934), which stopped all foreign imports and subsidized industry, hence raising their production in war essentials such as coal or oil. Later they implemented the Four Year Plan (1936), which was meant to prepare Germany for war in four years, in both industry and army. This left the country in a sate of Wehrwirtschaft, an economic state where both the economics of peacetime and wartime were combined. Although these policies successfully boosted the economy and industry, the economy was strictly controlled, and many small businesses were sacrificed to support bigger industries, which on the long run gave Germany more problems. Labor unions also came under Nazi control by implementing policies such as the RAD, which gave jobs to men while wearing an army uniform, the Strength Through Joy (KdF), which was a controlled leisure organization, or the German Labor Front (DAF). By controlling the labor unions, Hitler was able to control the workers as he pleased.
For Mussolini, the goal of modernization had been long overdue, since he felt this would help establish Italy as a leading European power. Through the pact of the Vidoni Palace in 1925, Mussolini gained virtually total control over all labor unions and their workers. Once they were under his control he underwent policies such as his Battle for Land, which cleared marshlands to make it useable for more profitable purposes, or his Battle of the Lira, where he inflated the value of their currency and therefore making exports more expensive. Although the first battle is considered to be a success, the latter was widely recognized as a failure. This policy made it difficult to trade with foreign countries, yet in the long run it proved beneficiary since once the Great Depression hit Italy wasn’t as severely affected. 
From these industrialization points, we can see that although industry was internalized in both countries, Hitler focused more militarily in his goals while Mussolini was more opportunistic, going with what proved to be most profitable.

With their economy successfully underway, both countries found themselves in need of natural resources, which lead them towards imperialistic expansion. Although these actions are tied with foreign policy, the overall aim of them was for Autarky, which was part of both of their domestic policy goals. What is most important to notice about the two leaders’ decisions in regards of expansion, was how planned their aims were.
Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 proved successful when Mussolini managed to gain victory, mainly due to the failure of the League of Nations. This success earned him respect amongst the people, which encouraged him towards more imperialistic actions such as those in Corfu.
Germany’s actions, such as the invasion of the Rhineland or Anschluss, were more calculated in nature, for they were specifically pointed out in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. 
From here we can see a great difference between the two rulers. Although they both agreed that through the use of the military and expansion into other countries for resources they could successfully solve domestic problems (such as lack of natural resources), Mussolini proves to be opportunistic; swinging from left to right winged actions (Third Way) depending on what favored him at the time, while Hitler maintained a steady path and clearly stated goals.

If we take a prosopography view on all the above events, we can attempt to understand the minds of the common people under their regime. The success  in revitalizing their economy and removing them from poverty, lead to the people to idolize these men who had done so much for them. Therefore when more controversial ideas were presented, they were more likely to go along with them since these leaders had already done so much for them.
If we look at a militaristic point of view, we might consider these actions militaristic in nature, actions that were taken out of a necessity to survive; while a revisionist historian might state that these were provocations of war that were a necessity to their fascist ideal, which relied heavily on militaristic endeavors.

Maintaining strong control over the opposition, aided them to maintain their power. They violently eliminated opposition in events such as the Night of Long Knives (1934) or the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti who spoke out against the Fascists in 1924, with their respective forces – the GESTAPO in Germany and the OVRA in Italy. They were especially radical against the communists, eliminating them in their respective countries and claiming them as the enemy. By making laws that made any form of opposition to their rule illegal, they mad sure they had their county under their complete control. This instilled terror in those who opposed the rulers and allowed them to go about without fear of opposition.  
Although one might attempt to refute this claim by stating that there were numerous assassination attempts against these men, it is important to notice that all these attempts failed. Both would then swiftly eliminate those who opposed them and inflict fear in any other potential enemies to their security,  and it is thanks to this violent success that the bulk of these assassination attempts occurred during their first years in power. 

These actions allowed both men to achieve wide popularity at home, but it is their effective use of propaganda and censorship as a means of glorification that allowed them to achieve a cult status and further strengthen their authoritarian regimes. 
With propaganda that emphasized their greatness and names to match (Mussolini was called Il Duce and Hitler Fuehrer), the two leaders built on their status. Both strictly controlled the contents of the press, the difference between the two being that Hitler controlled the majority of the press while Mussolini simply censored the content of it. They both did however have their own newspapers for that promoted their own interests, Il Popolo d’Italia in Italy and Der Strummer or Volkischer Beobachter in Germany. They also successfully managed to control the radio, Mussolini establishing the URI, a radio show that promoted and glorified the actions taken by his Fascist government.
Through sporting events, such as the German 1938 Olympics, or frequent rallies that celebrated actions taken by the government and its respective leader, they promoted themselves as almost invincible rulers.
By taking advantage and using propaganda in the form movies, Hitler was able to more effectively use the people, for with movies such as Hitler Junge Quex or Triumph of the will: Der Ewige Jude, he was able to spread his ideals to the masses. Mussolini on the other hand did not take as good advantage of the film industry.
Through these media, they effectively created their status as heroes of the nation as well as promoting their ideological ideals while simultaneously dismissing other views. Overall they were both very successful in their propaganda campaigns, Hitler proving to be slightly more competent in the area since he managed to more exclusively control the media. It can also be mentioned that the extent of their control can be seen since although in the beginning neither could do wrong, Mussolini’s empire ended by his own people. Therefore, Hitler was more successful in convincing the masses and securing his position as a nationalistic hero.
A great man historian’s point of view, would point out the success these men had in establishing themselves as cult figures idolized by the masses. He’d agree that this control over propaganda and ability to establish themselves as heroes of the nation was instrumental to their success since it made the people undoubtedly trust them and act out every order they commanded.




To maintain this cult status and therefore spread their ideals, both leaders focused extensively in their youth. Their main aim was to create a future generation that would oblige to the orders of their leaders while acting always for the benefit of Germany and the government. They made sure that girls and boys were separated, the first focusing on activities such as sowing or motherly related activities, while the latter focused on military activities in preparation for the war.
Starting off with more appealing activities for children such as camping or sporting, many became less satisfied with the programs over the years, especially as it became compulsory and militaristic in nature. Some escaped the compulsory part, and although the number of those who did not attend was less in Germany, youth movements against Hitler and the Nazi government were established.


One must point out though, that when the Hitler Youth was established, there was a rapid membership despite the compulsory nature of it; while on the other hand the program was less successful in Italy, where despite it being compulsory many did not attend, especially in the South. This shows to what extent the two leaders controlled their masses, for Mussolini was already losing part of his power, which is evident in his inability to completely control the youth.
They both also exerted control through schooling, altering the curriculum to fit their ideological needs. They both removed all teachers that did not belong to their respective part, and focused only in physical fitness and loyalty. The issue with this, was that intellectually, both nations made little progress in their young, thus creating a generation of dimwits.
For both leaders, the extent of their success is difficult to determine exactly. Although it proved to be more successful in Germany, especially in regards of “brainwashing” the youth with Nazi ideology, during the war it proved unsuccessful since not all were loyal. Overall, it did create a generation that was closely affiliated to the ideologies taught in school, but the extent of their loyalty wasn’t absolute and they gave up intelligence for loyalty.

The role of woman in both countries was generally the same. They emphasized a traditional role, where women stayed at home and made babies.
Both countries wanted to increase birthrates since they had small populations by giving loans for newlyweds and families with many children, taxation on bachelors, or medals to women who gave birth to many children. They presented the situation as one of national duty, as they provided the soldiers for the army, and in Italy it was known as the Battle for Births.
Although unsuccessful in both nations, the Nazi’s racial policies that supported sterilization only limited their success. Also, by promoting them to stay at home, once the war started and the men went to fight, Hitler was forced to reintroduce them to the work force.
One might point out that there was indeed a slight increase in birth rate in Germany during Hitler's rule, but it was most likely not due to his policies, but rather the better economic situation that allowed families to afford more children. Therefore, proving that his policies to increase birth rate in Germany did fail. 
             
            They also attempted to control the church to consolidate their power. Although they were both anti-religious, they understood the vital importance of controlling it to maintain power.
            With the Lateran agreements, Mussolini attempted to please the church by giving them back compensation for the land they had historically lost, therefore allowing him to do as he pleased without Church intervention. By receiving approval from the church, many catholic Italians joined his cause; yet this ultimately proved unsuccessful since he became highly dependant on pleasing the church and wasn’t able to replace Catholicism with Fascism.
            On the other hand, Hitler’s approach was to go against the power of the church rather than appeasing it. He created the Reich Church that went along with his Aryan faith, and arrested individuals who went against it. Therefore, in order to avoid destruction, the Church was forced to compromise. Despite this, the Reich Church wasn’t that popular and they failed in controlling religion.
            The key difference between the two leaders is mainly due to location. The Vatican is located in Italy, and therefore highly influential, making it difficult for Mussolini to control it as well as Hitler was able to. In the end, the Church had a great role in the downfall of Mussolini after their disagreements in regards to the youth and his anti-Semitic policies, while the Church in Germany proved to have little in hindrances to Hitler’s rule.

            Finally, the major difference between the two leaders, lied in their racial policies. From the beginning, Hitler clearly knew his racial views and desire for a superior Aryan race as well as his hatred for the Jewish population; while Mussolini’s racial laws were gradual and highly influenced by his alliance with Hitler.
            Hitler’s entire policy structure was based on his idea of a superior Aryan race, where he created a state that was only meant for the racially pure, known as the Volksgemeinschaft. It influenced all his major decisions and was a main pillar of his Nazi ideology. This purity meant that all those that did not meet his Aryan model – such as Jews, Gypsies, or disabled people – had to ultimately be eliminated. As soon as he came into  power, he established laws that suppressed them, imprisonment, sterilization, euthanasia, and finally his “Final Solution”, which was the mass extermination of these people. These policies were extremely successful, managing to mass murder thousands of people and influence average German citizens to assist him in this task.
            Mussolini on the other hand originally had no prejudice against specific racial groups, since his main goal was to convert them all to Fascism. It was in the later years when he began to align himself with Hitler after the establishment of the Rome-Berlin axis under the Pact of Steel in 1939, that he began to introduce laws against the Jewish population. Unlike in Hitler’s case, these laws were an extreme failure, greatly leading to his demise. It made him highly unpopular with the church, which in turn made him unpopular with his people.
            This difference in racial ideology was the key differentiator between the two. Yet more importantly, it shows how highly in control Hitler was amongst his people that they would commit such atrocities in his name. Mussolini on the other hand didn’t have as much control over his people, and he also proved to be easily influenced, which lead his people to stop supporting his cause. 


            Overall, both of these leaders were highly influential and established themselves as cult figures because of the decisions they took in their domestic policies. Their popularity amongst the masses is evident of their success, which stabilized both of their countries’ economy after a prolonged period of crisis. Their respective ideological goals were also accomplished, although Hitler proved to be more successful in this aspect since Mussolini’s own people took him down when they disagreed with his racial policies. Therefore, based on the above information, I’ve come to the conclusion that both Mussolini and Hitler’s domestic polices were quite successful, the latter proving to be more successful since he managed to stay in power and highly alter the minds of his people. 

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Why did Germany loose the war?

The defeat of Germany in the culmination of WWI marked the end of four years of brutal fighting that from the beginning seemed to go nowhere. Although the war ended with an armistice between the Allies and the Central power nations, every nation except for the Germans felt that Germany had been defeated. Even if Germany could’ve continued fighting, we generally assume that they would’ve eventually lost the war due to the path they had been going down since the beginning of the war. It could be considered that Germany lost the war the moment the Von Shlieffen Plan failed, for Germany wasn’t prepared for a two front war that would last so long; but the main culprit for leading them into its collapse, was the poor political structure and the poor choices made by the leadership of the nation, for its lack of foresight and organization lead them on a race downhill. I understand that there are many factors that lead to the downfall of Germany, but based on my personal insight, I’m attempting to narrow it down to one single factor, and even though my claim can be refuted, I will try to convince you otherwise.



Politically, Kaiser Wilhelm II was the impetuous German Emperor who in theory was in control of the country after he dismissed the Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and supported Austria-Hungary in the July Crisis of 1914, where Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia after the Serbian nationalistic group The Black Hand assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne; the event that sparked the outbreak of war. But as war broke out, the Kaiser sat back and his generals took control of all affairs, therefore making him only a figurehead. The major issue here is that the generals only consulted amongst themselves, often acting on their own without regards for the opinions of other government officials. The generals took into no account civilian populations or the Reichstag, the German equivalent to Parliament, in their military scheming. With no one to stop these generals, Germany became a state of war, headed by the military and concentrated only on what was beneficial for the army and their efforts, not the country itself. It is this initial error in properly organizing these militaristic leaders of the country that sets the wheels in motion for failure for any future militaristic feats they attempt to pursue.
One could contradict my claim by stating that the Kaiser was quite involved in WWI, with his numerous speeches for the German public urging them to mobilize; one might even argue that it was the Kaiser who is to blame for their faulty involvement in the war. But if we were to look at this war from a great leader historian’s point of view, he might agree with me that Kaiser Wilhelm II was quite the opposite of that, an that his leadership was quickly overshadowed once war started. Furthermore, although It’s true that he was involved in the cause for Germany’s involvement in the war, as for the loss of the war, since his involvement was so limited and generally left at the hands of his generals, we can dismiss him for any involvement in the actions during the war that lead to the defeat of Germany.

Feeling overconfident in their military prowess after recent Prussian success in the Franco-Prussian War, and the embarrassing defeat of the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, the German officials felt they could take on this war without much effort. Evidence of this can be seen in their limited and improper use of propaganda:





As we can see, the British and Americans terrorize their people, showing just how terrible the enemy is, while the Germans make it seem like it will be a quick and easy fight, which is indeed what they believed. If we take a prosopography view on these thee posters, which would be to put oneself into the skin of a common civilian who’s going to fight in the war, if you’re British or American, you fear your enemy and would be on edge at all times as well as desirous to protect your family at home of those terrible “brutes”. On the other hand, if a German sees a poster that states that they can easily win this war, they would go fight more relaxed and therefore not as effective as the American or British; and once faced with the horror and difficulty, their moral would go crashing down, while the American and British expected such horror. The lack of the German leadership to realize the value of properly used propaganda, cost them the lives of hundreds of soldiers as well as facilitating the world to blame them for the war.

            It’s this overconfidence that lead them to fail in their first involvement in the war, the Von Shlieffen Plan. Before the war broke out, due to the high tensions amongst the European powers, every country was already prepared for war, and with the assassination of Francis Ferdinand on June 28th 1914, countries were one by one thrust into the chaos of war. It is during this time that Germany made it’s first mistake. They set out a plan that would avoid fighting a war on two fronts, France on one side and Russia on the other. Known as the Von Shlieffen plan, German generals set out to quickly attack France and gain control of Paris by crossing through Belgium, this way eliminating one enemy and therefore being able to focus on the Russian army, who although was more numerous, would take longer to get in order. The error of this plan, was that the German leaders didn’t take into account the possibility of failure, and due to their overconfidence, when it failed, they had no alternative strategy, and therefore, when England quickly got involved, they were forced to dig out trenches.

Once on a standstill, Germany was faced with another major dilemma: the reason why the Von Shlieffen plan needed to succeed, was because Germany wasn’t prepared to fight a long term war, even less now that it was on two fronts. As the war started, the German war officials were concentrated on the fronts, not back at home. There was no sector where military actions were coordinated between social and economic actions, and it wasn’t until Walter Rathenau approached the Prussian War Minister and gave him the idea for the KRA that the German heads started becoming more productive with their economy. But even then, although this plan was an attempt at facilitating the war, it too was fallacious from the start due to the incompetence of the German leaders in regards to the management of a country.  (***ONE HOUR***)

The KRA, the German War Materials Office, was a poor system set up to provide the military with war materials. This office chose a few selected businesses to produce only for the government while those companies who remained private had to provide men to work on the machinery from their already limited number to the company working for the government in order to keep it strong. No ceiling was imposed on war profits by business, nor were these profits even taxed at all prior to 1916; and this slowly forced the private companies into poverty, widening the gap between the few wealthy and the many poor. The companies working for the war effort continuously got wealthier without injecting any of the wealth into the country’s economy, while the private companies became bankrupt; therefore Germany slowly sent itself into bankruptcy. In a poor attempt to revive the economy, they printed paper money and sold bonds to recover the costs, which in turn only created inflation. By the end of this cycle, Germany had forced itself into debt and most of the population was suffering for their government’s bad choices. The effects of this lack in judgment, was the heightening of tensions between German people, creating social instability and a cultural strain. 

German leadership was also unable to use their supplies appropriately. After the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, Germany acquired resource filled lands from Russia when their communist government pulled out. Yet although they were being crippled by an Allied blockade at sea, the German leaders weren’t able to organize themselves and use the gained resources to their benefit, instead they let their citizens and members of the army starve, which only gave rise to more social issues.  Germany’s inability to organize their economic effort directly affected their military efforts, which were directly dependant on the economy to keep succeeding. This in turn created further loss of morale and making the tensions between German people rise.

When the Allies formed the Naval blockade, preventing Germany access to their colonies with natural resources, the German people and army were starting to starve due to the lack of food. Instead of thoroughly thinking through the ripples of their actions, the German leaders precipitated themselves into unrestricted warfare. The moment they started sinking civilian ships, they completely lost the moral side of the war.
It’s true that this point can be argued that since they didn’t know for sure if the ships carried weapons or real civilians, it is therefore not the fault of the German leaders. But from a militaristic point of view, where you want to protect your country though all military means possible, taking the risk was a choice, even if they knew they were civilian ships. There was a possibility that the ship carried weapons, and therefore they made a choice in the benefit of their country to sink it. They didn’t realize the repercussions of their actions, but as leaders, they should’ve anticipated the then neutral U.S.’s reaction when their citizens were murdered for no reason.  Therefore, we can see in this example that due to the poor organization presented by the German leadership, their country was deprived of food and natural resources to make weapons, and thus plunging their economy into a crisis, which in turn lead them to the extreme and erroneous military actions which caused them more harm than good.

Another issue that can be seen with the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the Allied blockade on Germany is the lack of involvement of their allies. Throughout the war, Germany’s allies were poorly organized and often needed Germany to bail them out of difficult situations, like Austria-Hungary’s continuous conflict with Russia. This distracted Germany from her own front and weakened her to her enemies. But the major piece in this is that although they were all allies, they all acted individually unless it was a case of extreme emergency. Unlike the Allies who organized their attacks collectively, the Central Powers were scattered and weak, and often times their plans conflicted because they couldn’t organize themselves. Especially after the involvement of the U.S. after the sinking of the Lusitania, Germany now had more issues at stake, for their allies were providing useless already with their enemy, and now that such a strong and fresh country such as the U.S. had joined the war, Germany was beginning to sink under. It is their lack of management in regards to international relations and foresight of the actions that would come in reaction to their strategy that lead to them loosing the moral side of the war as well as allowing the U.S to enter the war, who until then had no reason. This is a clear piece that shows how the lack of proper leadership by the Germans and their Allies lead to their defeat for they couldn't coordinate their military actions.

Culturally and Economically Germany was suffering extensively due to the inability for the German leaders to take care of both their home and the war.  But now, even their military actions were going from bad to worse do to the poor choices made by their political leaders. The final example of this is Germany’s final offensive, the Ludendorff Offensive. Their plan was that before the American troops arrived, the Germans would quickly break the French lines and capture Paris with the use of storm troopers and heavy shelling. They had a slight numerical advantage over the French and British troops now that Russia was no longer a part of the war. Although they successfully broke the lines and made the biggest advancements since 1914, their lines thinned out as they advanced, and they left their gained land unprotected since the storm troopers were much faster than the rest of the soldiers who were carrying supplies. Eventually the storm troopers, due to lack of supplies were weakened, and it was an easy task for the Allies to get back the land. The great loss of men during this attack lead of the eventual collapse of the Hindenburg line, one of the many factors leading to the ruin of Germany.
They key culprit for these actions are the military generals in charge, who feeling pressured made rash decisions that cost them the war.

Overall, we can see that the disastrous political actions taken by Germany’s leaders, destroyed not only their economy and social structure, but also lead to rash military actions, which caused them to eventually fall under the pressure of the Allied forces. Although the Germans feel that they responsibly chose to give up the war and sign an armistice, and therefore didn’t “loose”, continuing on the path they were going on, it wouldn’t have taken much time for the Germans to fall. Even if the U.S hadn’t joined the war, the German people were fed up with mass unemployment and starvation due to the war, and would most likely have pushed for pulling out with due time. Therefore, although they did last long enough, the Allied powers most likely could’ve lasted longer, since their people weren’t in such a bad state as those of the Germans. 

Monday, January 9, 2012

Involvment of women in WW1 and the latter affects.


The reason for the beginning of World War 1 is still debated, but what is clear to everyone, is that WW1 was a game changer in all spheres: political, military, and especially social. As the war progressed, social boundaries were broken out of necessity, and unseen until then, women were directly involved in the war. Two countries in particular addressed women and directly injected them into the war efforts, although the style of their involvement was different, it lead women in both countries to experience freedom from their usual roles and set the stage for their demand of more change. In Britain and Russia, women were crucial to the war efforts, but their involvement was different in each country, and thus the magnitude of change in women roles after the war was also different. There is much debate for whether the war was the cause of change in women roles or if it was a natural progression in women’s efforts for equality before the war, and although it might not have been the main cause, it is indeed the catalyst that lead to change – or the lack of it.

To understand the impact of the war on the role of women, one must first analyze their actual involvement in the war to comprehend what factors lead to change.

Before WW1, women in Britain were constrained to what were considered to be “woman jobs”, such as teaching, the textile industry, nursing, commerce, or domestic work. Those that worked in factories were paid much lower wages than their male counterparts, and although unjust it was the only work available to them. Women suffrage was very active in Britain, but their efforts seemed to be arriving at a standstill. When war broke out many women actively supported the war hoping that it would help their chances for change.

Russia on the other hand, was still under Tsarist Russia, which expected women to maintain traditional roles; but as royalty unraveled and communism began to spread throughout Russia, their ideology of equality for all – including women – began to make Russian women lean towards communism and support the cause.

Once war broke out, women’s involvement was necessary, especially at the home front, where as
 #