World War I is often ironically called “the war to end all wars”. Ironic of course, because though a desperately tragic war, it certainly did not end all wars, and in many ways actually set the stage for the second World War. World War I lasted from 1914-1918, and involved over twenty nations and killed millions. The war had many contributing factors, but was started by the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, lighting the powder keg in the Baltics. As stated by H.W Crocker: “What started World War 1 began with one death. It ended with 17 million more dead.” While the war was decidedly abysmal in terms of human casualties, it created many opportunities for technological advancement.
In “The Invention of the War Machine”, Mark and Anthony Mills discuss why World War I has been called the “war of the engineers”, and why that can be somewhat misleading. The authors lay out a series of technological advances attributed to World War I, and break them into five categories: weapons technologies, medical innovations, and non-weapons technologies, industrial research, scientific involvement. As each invention or technology is examined, the authors give us the corresponding civilian technology that had been invented before the start of the war. In addition to the preexisting technology, the later inventions that spawned out of the war are also parsed. The main theme of the essay is not to demonstrate when inventions were created, but to illustrate how several different industries/fields came together as one, to ultimately rise to the challenge of World War 1 and the corresponding civilian advancements.
Weapons such as the German U-boats, Tanks, and chemical warfare are discussed. For example, submarine technology was not invented in World War I. Mills tells us “…the submarine was not a German invention and even predated the war by a half-century…”. The first mechanically powered submarine was launched in France in 1863; even in 1775 David Bushnell had created a viable submarine. When the Germans used this tool of war so effectively it caused the allied nations to adapt and develop new technology. The Author gives the example of the hydrophone (originally developed for civilian use) being combined with the invention of the depth charge to root out German U-boats. This is the sort of “military-industrial-complex” the author is referring to when he uses President Eisenhower’s later words.
While the “war machine” did create new powerful means of destruction, it therefore also created the need for new methods of life saving equipment. Mills gives the example of Marie Curie driving vehicles equipped with the first mobile X-ray machines. He also touches such innovations as: rapid medical transport, blood transfusions, and even the development of penicillin. “…tremors, hypersensitivity, confusion, lassitude, a thousand-yard stare- became known as “shell shock””. Soldiers returning from WWI with such conditions were not treated with effective remedies. However, the problem was then focused on and better treatments were developed.
With the advancements on the battlefield and in the triage centers it is only natural that several of the technologies spawned from the war benefited civilian society as well. “Other examples include the zipper (promptly adopted by producers of aviator suits and sleeping bags), secure optical communications (the heliograph), daylight savings time (to save energy), the tea bag, the first widespread and institutional distribution of condoms, and the wristwatch”. Many of these technologies existed before the war, but were not put into wide scale use until or because of the war. Specific techs like aircraft to ground communication were improved, which opened the door for obvious improvements in the commercial sector. Had the war not happened, some of the aforementioned techs may have taken decades to come to fruition.
While Mills tells us about each of the specific fields improved because of the war, perhaps one of the more long lasting things to come of the war was the industrial research process. The president of the American Chemical Society Arthur Little once stated in a speech “Modern progress can no longer depend upon accidental discoveries. Each advance in industrial science must be studied, organized and fought like a military campaign.” What Little was trying to assert was that the World needed to change its industrial practices to keep up with changing technologies spawning from the war. During the war “x” would happen and “y” would be developed to combat “x”. Instead of this reactionary stance, Little wants to illustrate the importance of established corporate research.
While having the plans for industrial research in place is essential, it can’t move forward without scientist doing the actual research. Prior to the first World War it was unlikely for a president to request assistance from the nations scientists. An astronomer George Hale played a major role in getting scientists into the public sphere. As a member of the National Academy, Hale was an advocate for scientists serving as the foreign secretary. During this time period scientific journals were on the rise and Hale saw the use they could play in getting the American people to trust scientists. During the War Hale was appointed as a chairperson of a scientific counsel. Its aim was to bring together scientific research and industrial process to further the national security and economy.
Mills article has shed light on a quite a few interesting points about the technologies associated with World War I. I tend to agree with the author that the war in general accelerated the process for which these technologies were made available. I think the prospect of death and destruction can be a stark motivator for quick innovation. As Mills said the hydrophone had been around for several years. But would it have been advanced so quickly if it hadn’t been for the sinking of the Lusitania? I think eventually the tech would have progressed, but the war definitely moved things along.
My biggest take away from the article was the importance of the industrial research. Not only were these processes critical to the war effort then, but have been a staple ever since in our society. Companies are constantly developing new technology to stay “current”. This sort of natural competition is good for our economy and for new emerging technologies. It guarantees that we don’t have to wait for a catalyst like war to be constantly at the cutting edge of technology. I think Mills has drawn interesting and fact-based conclusions from their historical research . It would certainly seem as though the innovations from the industrial military complex helped not only the war effort, but civilian advancements as well. The process of introducing industrial research to military problems seems to have worked to great effect for the not only the war effort, but also civilian life for generations to come.
Works Cited
- Crocker, H. W. The Yanks Are Coming!: a Military History of the United States in World War I. Regnery Publ., 2014.
2. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Turtle.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 6 Mar. 2018, www.britannica.com/topic/Turtle-submarine.
3. Mills, Anthony, and Marc Mills. “The Invention of the War Machine.” The New Atlantis, 2014, www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-invention-of-the-war-machine.