Economies at War, 1916

Reported in Scientific American, This Week in World War I: March 4, 1916.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


The countries that were fighting most desperately in the First World War threw huge chunks of their national economies into the struggle in a search for victory.

We Can Do It: Armaments were increasingly manufactured by women. It is possible (but not certain) this image may be a propaganda photo: it is odd that a worker in a dirty factory job making artillery shells would be so finely dressed. 
Image: Scientific American, March 4, 1916​

Some statistics (very brief—I promise!). The money value of all the goods and services that a country produces is called the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Peacetime governments skim off some of the GDP to spend on benefits for its citizens, such as roads, education and defence. As the war continued, though, some governments gobbled up larger shares of the GDP to spend on the war effort.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In 1913, the year before war broke out, the governments of France and Germany spent about 10 percent of their GDP. By 1916 government spending was closer to 50 percent—half the economy—mostly on the war effort.

Scarcity of Metal: This clock in Germany had its copper weight removed and replaced by a rock. The metal, desperately scarce, may have gone into machine-gun cartridges or shell components.
Image: Scientific American, March 4, 1916

These images from Germany and France, published in Scientific American this week 100 years ago, on March 4, 1916, show some of the extreme disruption to the economy (and social order) in these two countries that was caused by the ongoing world war.

 (Statistics courtesy of “The Economics of World War I,” edited by Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison of the University of Warwick, published by Cambridge University Press, 2009. There are some interesting numbers on British spending from UK Public Spending here. Numbers of French troops mobilized comes from www.151ril.com/content/history)

-

Our full archive of the war, called Scientific American Chronicles: World War I, has many articles from 1914–1918 on the economic aspects and effects of the First World War. It is available for purchase at www.scientificamerican.com/products/world-war-i/

German Home Front: Artillery consumed a vast amount of resources. Here, workers are making wicker cradles for transporting artillery shells from the factory to the front. 
Image: Scientific American, March 4, 1916

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe