![]() ![]() Most in-depth studies of World War II mobilization have explored the impact of military service on the lives of disadvantaged men (e.g., Sampson and Laub 1996) and the process by which manpower mobilization channeled women, the no-nemployed, and minorities into war roles ( Modell, Goulden, and Magnusson 1989 Modell and Haggerty 1991 Campbell 1984 Kesselman 1990).īy contrast, the focus of this study is on the wartime mobilization of men with professional and other white-collar occupations. Whether through voluntary action, the military draft, or war-industry employment, mass mobilization pulled men and women out of conventional pursuits of all kinds. Military recruitment clearly disrupted the ordinary flow of lives and community activities, as did the mobilization of workers into essential war industries, such as shipyards, aircraft factories, and munitions plants. The scope of mobilization left few households untouched by military service or by home front needs. Given the state’s disparate goals, the inevitable gaps between policy ideas and their implementation, and the informal processes of recruitment at the local level, the relevance of prewar occupation for wartime experiences has remained largely unknown. ![]() Occupation-based skills varied in how they could be used by the armed forces and on the home front, and thus they were defined by war manpower policies in ways that could lead to different fields of service ( Fairchild and Grossman 1959). The Selective Service System was responsible for administering the draft and determining liability for military service through the coordination of Selective Service boards.īoth the War Manpower Commission and the Selective Service System used occupation, along with other considerations (e.g., age, family/dependency status, health), as a criterion for role assignment ( Flynn 1979, pp. The commission, incorporated into the Department of Labor in 1945, was responsible for planning and supervising the recruitment, training, and distribution of workers in the face of the essential domestic labor shortage. The overlapping manpower needs of industry, government agencies, and the armed forces were played out in the War Manpower Commission and the Selective Service System. However, the two processes are interrelated. Research on wartime mobilization has focused on the implications of either military service or, to a much lesser degree, work-related activities on the home front. All of this occurred with an eye to maintaining a basic standard of living on the domestic front. These policies were guided by the twin goals of rapidly expanding military personnel and generating a sufficient civilian workforce with expertise necessary for war production on the home front. ![]() In this competition for scarce human resources, the government designed policies ( Selective Service System 1947 a, 1947 b) to address the multiple and conflicting manpower needs of the armed forces and the economy. During World War II, labor mobilization under state directive reached a new high for Americans in response to the urgent need for military personnel and the soaring demand for greater war production on the home front. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |