What else would you expect? Russia had recently had its incipient industrial infrastructure devastated by a foreign invasion followed by a civil war. The U.S. had gone through nothing of the kind and had a head-start on industrialization anyway.
What “freedoms,” exactly, did we lose when the New Deal came in?
Well, labor regulations eliminated some ability to freely contract for labor. The SEC and FDIC restricted the formation and operations of banks and public companies. The farm subsidies and quotas restricted the ability of farmers to plant crops of their choice and sell them freely. Generally, the New Deal introduced a set of commercial regulations that reduced the freedoms of the actors in the economy.
People also accepted the introduction of transfer payments. This is a fairly big deal. The mass of workers would have less money in their pockets so the less fortunate minority would have something. Losing this income was also a loss of freedom in a more abstract way.
When the OP asks if the New Deal was a success, I think the relief from suffering is more important than ending the depression. People didn’t want a change because of the measure of GDP or the current DOW score. People were poor and hungry. That drove the need for change. If your family was eating while the DOW was down, you’d probably be satisfied with the success of the New Deal.
The depression was taumatic. My father’s family was reasonably well of but they still had cousins come to stay for extended periods because their parents simply couldn’t afford to feed them. When this happens, even the comfortable want a change. The trade-off was seen as beneficial. By this measure, it was a success.
Did it end the depression, probably not.
I would expect not to have slave labor camps under any circumstances by the XX century.
Talking about New Deal successes,
Based on posts in this thread so far, nobody seems to think the New Deal was, on balance, a bad idea. Although there were many who thought so at the time.
Chauvinistic militarism may have gotten worse in Japan as a result of the Great Depression, but it certainly didn’t emerge then. Almost as soon as it managed to become an industrial country and compete with the European powers, Japan was militaristic and agressive. Prior to the Depression, the Japanese had:
-
Fought a full-scale war against Russia.
-
Entered World War I in order to capture Germany’s colonies in the Pacific.
-
Occupied Korea by force.
-
Joined with the western countries in supressing the Boxer Rebellion in China.
True, but not all of these actions were inherently agressive. Russia in 1905 wasn’t exactly an innocent victim (in fact, I have never heard it characterized as an agressive war), and Japan had arguably legitimate reasons for the occupation of Korea in 1910 (I’m not saying that the Japanese leaders were correct, but they truly believed that seizing Korea was a necessary action for maintaining the security of Japan.) From the early 1920s to the Great Depression, Japanese party politicians were the dominant actors within the Japanese government. The military acted in coordination with the civilian government. It was only after the Great Depression that the Japanese military became the primary actors within the government, and only after the Great Depression that the Japanese military felt confident enough to engage in military adventurism without the approval of the civilian government in Tokyo (the 1930 invasion of Manchuria). The Great Depression was a significant factor in deciding the fate of Japan.
Well, the recession of 1937-38 is generally attributed to FDR’s decision to cut federal spending and try to balance the budget. Prior to this decision, the unemployment rate had dropped from 25% to 14.3% in the course of FDR’s presidency from 1933 to 1937. I’m not arguing that the New Deal was wholly responsible for that drop in unemployment, but the decision to end deficit spending in 1937 certainly harmed the economy.
Low interest rates, deficit spending and inflationary monetary policy is the current orthodox economic remedy for deflation/deep recession - witness the criticism leveled at Japan during the 90s for its failure to adopt (most of) those remedies.
Had FDR not cut spending in 1937, and had there not been a WWII, would the Great Depression had ended? Certainly. Had he cut spending, and had there not been a WWII, would the Great Depression had ended? Also, certainly. Recovery was inevitable. But it probably would have ended earlier if deficit spending had not been cut.
Sua
The US Economy boomed through the twenties. The foundation of that boom was less than solid. Thus when the collapse came, it was pretty freakin impressive.
The economies of Germany, France, England did not boom through the twenties - there was too much recovery necessary to have the sort of speculative binge that the US rode to prosperity.
England had a recession then growth after the crash, such that the English economy in 1935 was substantially larger in 1935 than in 1929. England bore its economic difficulties, which were different and less severe than those of America. England could exhibit the quiet dignity because the English economy stubbed it’s toe, rather than falling on its face.
Italy went fascist long before the Great Depression.
Japan was less affected then most of the industrial powers, but hit the militarism thing hard. The militarism wasn’t a popular movement, or even an attempt to emulate the “will of the people”, but a minority movement.
Germany had a whole house of cards built that the depression wrecked, but mainly because the house was made of, well, cards.