The Great Depression of the 1930s

[Tahuti]

I'm planning to make a documentary about the Great Depression and while - with all due respect - economic history doesn't seem to be the forté of the historians here on CFC, I figured I'd might do well to ask here on this board for some pointers concerning literature and experts on the subject as I tried googling around to unsatisfactory results (as I don't want to rely on internet based sources).
I'm also looking for collaboration to do research, in case you're interested and up to it, or know someone who is.

I'm still in the orientation and research phase, and while I haven't written a screenplay yet, I'm thinking of a three-phase structure consisting of 1) causes (with historical backgrounds and opinions of historians and economists), 2) consequences and 3) solutions (how governments at the time responded, how economists at the time thought and today think they should have, and to figure out what really ended the Great Depression)

Every comment is appreciated

 

[sophie]

I'm planning to make a documentary about the Great Depression and while - with all due respect - economic history doesn't seem to be the forté of the historians here on CFC,

That's not true, Masada is an excellent economic historian. I'd recommend you start with him.

 

[Glassfan]

My experience on these Forums is that their's a lot more opinion than fact, and endless disagreement and debate. If you're serious about doing a documentary on the Great Depression, you'd be best advised to do your own research.

In my own opinion, the GD was a perfect storm phenomena - numerous things went wrong; political, economic, even environmental - all at once to negatively effect the economies of the world. The consequences are actually the easiest part to document, and substitute for analysis in many works. Solutions? The governments of the word completely failed to deal effectively with the Great Depression, and it drug-on until World War II reset the global economy.

 

[Dachs]

That's not true, Masada is an excellent economic historian. I'd recommend you start with him.

Assuming he's available/intelligible/not in an overly snarky mood. Integral also knows his stuff there.

Also, I'm reasonably good at economic history in certain periodizations. It's just that this isn't one of them.

 

[Bowsling]

The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson may be an interesting read. If you skip the parts where he attempts to write about history and focus instead on the parts about economics.

 

[sophie]

Assuming he's available/intelligible/not in an overly snarky mood. Integral also knows his stuff there.

Also, I'm reasonably good at economic history in certain periodizations. It's just that this isn't one of them.

I know what you mean. I could talk plenty about the particulars of the 16th century European economic sphere, or the "17th Century Crisis" or the Silver trade, but get me into the 20th century and I'm completely lost.

And you could conceivably get Masada to talk with enough prodding. He does know quite a bit about The Great Depression. Integral would be an excellent choice as well, and probably a bit more interested in being, you know, helpful.

 

[Tahuti]

In my own opinion, the GD was a perfect storm phenomena - numerous things went wrong; political, economic, even environmental - all at once to negatively effect the economies of the world. The consequences are actually the easiest part to document, and substitute for analysis in many works. Solutions? The governments of the word completely failed to deal effectively with the Great Depression, and it drug-on until World War II reset the global economy.

That's not true, Masada is an excellent economic historian. I'd recommend you start with him.

The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson may be an interesting read. If you skip the parts where he attempts to write about history and focus instead on the parts about economics.

Thanks alot guys! These suggestions should get me started at the very least.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm planning to make a documentary about the Great Depression and while - with all due respect - economic history doesn't seem to be the forté of the historians here on CFC, I figured I'd might do well to ask here on this board for some pointers concerning literature and experts on the subject as I tried googling around to unsatisfactory results (as I don't want to rely on internet based sources).

Will yoru public be european or american?

The great depression wasn't similar in every country struck by it, not was it even a depression to all. Even though it is conventionally defined as having started with a default of an austrian bank, most analysis focus on the USA and disregard its very different impacts and consequences across Europe. The one thing that was felt worldwide was a big reduction of trade, but even that had very different impacts. For example, it spurred industrial development in several countries, especially those less developed. Even though prices of goods fell some previously import-dependent countries couldn't continue importing because of lack of credit and opted for building up local industries where it was at all possible.

Actually, there was another consequence which was felt pretty much worldwide: workers had their income reduced, in the "center/industrial" countries because of unemployment, in the "periphery/industrializing" countries because industrialization was always done with low wages so as to accumulate and reinvest more capital asap. That was, interestingly. a common feature of both capitalist and communist (well, the USSR) countries in the 1930s...

Also, the direct (immediate) political impact of the Great Depression tends to be overestimated. For example, in Europe the "regime changes" had happened in the early 20s as fallout from WW2, or in the mid-30s as a consequence of the development of mass politics which resulted from industrialization but was neither much accelerated not slowed by the Great Depression.

My experience on these Forums is that their's a lot more opinion than fact

As if there was any other purpose for an historian than to produce an opinion.

Pretending to collect just raw facts is the domain of statisticians, much joy may they have with that!

 

[Tahuti]

Will yoru public be european or american?

It may sound overly ambitious to the point of foolhardiness, but I will try to reach both. But the main focus will be set on the USA, Latin America, UK, Germany and Japan because all these regions suffered different consequences and took different actions against the depression as well; Japan undertook Keynesian style defecit spending that was even more ambitious than the New Deal; The UK was one of the first countries to drop the gold standard.

Also, the direct (immediate) political impact of the Great Depression tends to be overestimated. For example, in Europe the "regime changes" had happened in the early 20s as fallout from WW2, or in the mid-30s as a consequence of the development of mass politics which resulted from industrialization but was neither much accelerated not slowed by the Great Depression.

So you say Hitler's rise was pretty much inevitable, depression or no depression? I always thought the development of mass politics (which was in all likelihood indeed brought about by industrialization) made the rise of Nazism and Fascism theoretically possible, but wasn't deceisive in doing so.
Germany was more reliant on American investment than any other European country at the time, so the Great Depression hit Germany particularly hard, and created the right political climate for totalitarianism to emerge.

 

[Algeroth]

The rise of Italian Fascism was result of disenchantment with the results of WWI, it preceded the Great Depression by several years.

 

[Tahuti]

The rise of Italian Fascism was result of disenchantment with the results of WWI, it preceded the Great Depression by several years.

I don't think I've ever said Italian Fascism was brought about by the great depression.

 

[innonimatu]

So you say Hitler's rise was pretty much inevitable, depression or no depression? I always thought the development of mass politics (which was in all likelihood indeed brought about by industrialization) made the rise of Nazism and Fascism theoretically possible, but wasn't deceisive in doing so.
Germany was more reliant on American investment than any other European country at the time, so the Great Depression hit Germany particularly hard, and created the right political climate for totalitarianism to emerge.

The placement of the nazis in power was certainly not inevitable. It took Hindenburg, Hugenberg, von Papen, and several other top players of the traditional "liberal right", plus the scheming of Eugenio Pacelli (better known later as Pius XII - funny how he was attacked by some people for actions as Pope during WW2, but his actions in disbanding catholic opposition in the Centre Party to Hitler in 1932 usually gets forgotten) to get Hitler into government.

Another enabling factor for the collapse of the Weimar Republic from the top were the many paramilitary political organizations tolerated since the end of WW1. Its leaders never really managed to bring that under control, in part because they had a small army as a consequence of Versailles.

Finally, the remaining economic and psychological legacy from the Treaty of Versailles. It was no accident that even after crushing democracy the nazis aligned their plebiscites with with referendums on leaving the SDN or denouncing several limitation from that treaty.
Before they were handed power the 1929 referendum on the new plan to pay the war reparations gave the nazis the opportunity they were waiting for to get popular. While you can argue that the 1929 referendum was brought about in that year by the Depression, german difficulties with payment of the war reparations would probably bring it about even had the Depression not happened that year. The referendum is really the only immediate link I can think of. That, and Hugenberg's underestimation of Hitler, enabled the nazis to become a major party. But they could still have been kept from power if those top players had shunned them.

 

[Algeroth]

I don't think I've ever said Italian Fascism was brought about by the great depression.

Sorry. I had to misinterpret ypur

So you say Hitler's rise was pretty much inevitable, depression or no depression? I always thought the development of mass politics (which was in all likelihood indeed brought about by industrialization) made the rise of Nazism and Fascism theoretically possible, but wasn't deceisive in doing so.

The placement of the nazis in power was certainly not inevitable. It took Hindenburg, Hugenberg, von Papen, and several other top players of the traditional "liberal right".

Describing Zentrum as liberal is ...funnny.

 

[innonimatu]

Describing Zentrum as liberal is ...funnny.

"Liberal" in the sense that they were playing by the rules of liberal democracy.

 

[kronic]

I'm looking forward to your documentary, Kaiserguard. Surely, you've already come across the works of Eichengreen, Kindleberger and Galbraith on the matter. They seem to be considered classics, at least in the Anglosphere. And although I had hoped to read a book that wasn't as blatantly anti-German as Adam Tooze's "Wages of Destruction", that book offers some insight on how Germany responded to the Depression in the first chapters of the book.

 

[classical_hero]

I know that in Australia it meant that we almost had a successful secession, since WA had voted too go away from Australia due to the bad economic times, but Britain did not allow it, so we are stuck with the rest of the country.

 

[Masada]

You can't hope to write a narrative of the Great Depression that gives adequete coverage to the world; the different schools of thought and so forth. At best you'll just end up listing what X thinks, what Y thinks, and dot pointing what happened in area X and area Y. I don't have a solution to that problem. The best advice I have is to read broadly and see where that leads. I suspect you'll arrive at one of two approaches: (1) a compare and contrast approach looking at what different people think/thought caused the Great Depression or (2) an approach that looks at a couple of different regions/areas/industries/whatever which seeks to contrast different experiences of the Great Depression. You might come up with something novel... but the literature tends, where it doesn't fall into very narrow studies or Grand Narratives, to be arranged thus.

My experience on these Forums is that their's a lot more opinion than fact, and endless disagreement and debate. If you're serious about doing a documentary on the Great Depression, you'd be best advised to do your own research.

This is indeed the case. In truth the literature is like this as well. So much so, that I don't have a firm opinion on anything to do with the Great Depression. As a result I often hold multiple contradictory views on the same question.

The consequences are actually the easiest part to document, and substitute for analysis in many works.

I'd argue it's the hardest part because everyone 'knows' about the Great Depression. This is one of the reasons I tend to stay out of Great Depression debates.

The governments of the word completely failed to deal effectively with the Great Depression, and it drug-on until World War II reset the global economy.

Your making the assumption that government(s) were capable of dealing effectively with it. I'd argue that they weren't.

The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson may be an interesting read. If you skip the parts where he attempts to write about history and focus instead on the parts about economics.

Ferguson is as awful a historian, as he is an economist. Don't waste the time.

Will yoru public be european or american

Yes, because of those perspectives are far more representative of a global event than just the one view.

Surely, you've already come across the works of Eichengreen, Kindleberger and Galbraith on the matter.

Worth a read. As noted, avoid Tooze.

I know that in Australia it meant that we almost had a successful secession, since WA had voted too go away from Australia due to the bad economic times, but Britain did not allow it, so we are stuck with the rest of the country.

No. What the British Government of the time said was not "no" to the whole idea, but "no" to circumventing the Australian Constitution and supervising the destruction of the whole notion of responsible Australian government.

 

[Cutlass]

Other than being anti-German, what's wrong with Tooze?

 

[innonimatu]

Yes, because of those perspectives are far more representative of a global event than just the one view.

Ok, you caught me with that one. I would love to know more about the impact of the Depression in the eastern hemisphere, as I don't run into many discussions about that!

 

[Tahuti]

I'm looking forward to your documentary, Kaiserguard. Surely, you've already come across the works of Eichengreen, Kindleberger and Galbraith on the matter. They seem to be considered classics, at least in the Anglosphere.

Yes, and I'm going read the works of the aforementioned authors on the subject. I also think it's quite worthwhile to shed some light on the Monetarist and even Marxian and Austrian explanations of the crisis as well.