World War II: Homefront and Social Changes
Overview and Context
The lecture centers on major topics from Kennedy’s readings this week, focusing on the World War II home front and the experiences of groups at the margins of American society.
Opening themes highlighted by students include: a war took place, skepticism about entering WWII given wartime atrocities in Europe, and the frustration of African American service members who bore costs of war at home (second-class citizenship).
Wartime production and economic activity, followed by the complex economic aftermath after WWII, are noted as important threads to return to later.
A contrast is drawn between the wartime fighting abroad and the lived experiences on the home front, especially for working women, Mexican migrant laborers, and other marginalized groups.
Key facts to anchor discussion:
One out of every nine Americans left home to join the U.S. military during WWII.
A large war-time labor gap existed as many stayed home to fill wartime industries and the growing economy.
There was a prewar history of less-than-stellar treatment of veterans and a different public mood toward soldiers compared to later decades.
Federal Employment Discrimination and Black Workers
A primary focus is the shift in federal policy toward nondiscrimination in defense employment during WWII.
NPR clip background introduces the Trump administration’s removal of a decades-old clause from federal contractor rules prohibiting segregated facilities. The clause dated back to the 1960s (the segregation prohibition) and its removal signals symbolic but meaningful policy shifts in the broader context of civil rights and federal contracting.
The memo by the General Services Administration (GSA), prompted by executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion, excludes a list of nine clauses from future contracts. The change was enacted with immediate effect, bypassing typical notice-and-comment procedures reserved for emergencies, raising questions about governance and civil rights.
The clause read: "contractor agrees that it does not and will not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments" and defined segregated facilities to include work areas, restaurants, drinking fountains, housing, etc., prohibiting segregation by race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
Critics argue the clause’s removal is symbolic but significant, signaling a refusal to require integrated facilities as a condition of federal contracts, despite existing federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
A. Philip Randolph and the Double Victory concept
Randolph (born in Florida; grandson of enslaved Blacks) emerged as a leading labor and civil rights figure advocating for Black advancement at home and in defense industries.
Founding president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (1925); achieved full union rights with Pullman by the 1930s.
In 1940–41, Randolph organized plans for a national mass movement (the “March on Washington” movement) demanding non-discrimination in defense employment and expanded Black employment during the war.
The proposed 1941 March on Washington (led by Randolph) could have involved up to 100,000 African Americans in Washington, D.C., and would have highlighted racial discrimination in defense industries.
In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order (EO) 8802 in 1941 to address these demands.
Executive Order 8802 (EEO in defense employment) and FEPC
Textual basis: EO 8802 declared there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin; and it urged employers and labor organizations to provide full and equitable participation.
Establishment of the Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) within the Office of Production Management to investigate complaints and enforce nondiscrimination in defense contracting and government programs.
Initial FEPC weakness: it could investigate but not impose strong sanctions; enforcement capacity was limited by administrative authority.
1943 marked a significant expansion: FEPC funding, staff, and enforcement powers increased, enabling more robust penalties for discrimination; the NLRB also leaned on to enforce nondiscrimination among unions that engaged in defense production.
Black employment in defense industries: growth and limits
In 1940, roughly rac{2}{100} (2%) of workers in aircraft production were Black; in 1942 this rose to rac{3}{100} (3%); by war’s end, Black workers held about rac{8}{100} (8%) of defense industry jobs—an important though still limited share given Black population proportions.
The Great Migration saw roughly 5{,}000{,}000 Blacks leave the South for opportunities in the North and West (note: the transcript cites “Half a million blacks left the American South toward opportunities in the North and West” and also says “600,000 of the 1,000,000 African Americans in defense industries were women”—figures vary by source and region, but the trend is clear: significant geographic and occupational shifts).
Black women’s labor share grew from about 6.5\% to 18\% in defense industries during the period.
Government employment also grew: the number of Black employees in U.S. government civil service roughly tripled by the end of the war.
Unionization and the CIO
The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) embraced a racially integrated, class-based approach to organizing workers, contrasting with more traditional unions.
By 1943, the CIO gained about 400{,}000 Black members in its unions, conferring rights such as collective bargaining, seniority protections, and grievance procedures to many Black workers for the first time.
Veterans, service, and broader implications
The wartime labor shift intersects with broader questions of citizenship, labor rights, and civil rights—a prelude to later debates about equal opportunity and equality under law.
A Focus on Working Women: Rosie the Riveter and Beyond
Women’s wartime labor surge
Approximately 6{,}000{,}000 more women entered the labor force by the end of WWII.
The share of women in the workforce rose from roughly 20\% in 1920 to about 36\% by 1945.
Wartime mobilization created new, large-scale opportunities for women in defense industries, including technical and skilled roles previously closed to them.
The Rosie the Riveter phenomenon
“Rosie the Riveter” originated from a 1942 song, became a nationwide symbol encouraging women to take on industrial labor, and spurred a wave of posters and propaganda.
The archetype focused on women performing manual-technical labor with rivet guns and other heavy machinery, especially in aircraft and shipbuilding industries.
Adele Ehrenberg: a case study in wartime labor mobility
Adele, a 26-year-old in Los Angeles, initially faced barriers to defense plant employment but eventually passed a plant test for hydraulic systems used in B-17 bombers.
She began in less technical roles (sanding) and moved to become one of the few female machinists, handling blueprints and tools, and ultimately operating large automatic screw machines.
She recalled: "defense work was the beginning of my emancipation as a woman. For the first time in my life, I found out that I could do something with my hands besides bake a pie."
Kennedy’s interpretation of women’s gains
Kennedy emphasizes that the most lasting changes did not come from a minority of women in highly technical roles but from the large number of women in service, clerical, and other non-manual jobs.
Although Rosie’s image captures a moment of advancement, the majority of women in wartime work remained in service and clerical positions, which had more staying power after the war.
Postwar rollback and ongoing gender norms
After WWII, when men returned home, employers moved to restore prewar gender divisions of labor: the male breadwinner model re-emerged and domestic expectations intensified.
Some postwar statistics cited: about 1/4 of auto workers were women during WWII, but by 1946, women accounted for less than 1/10 of auto workers; overall, less than a quarter of working women held blue-collar jobs after the war.
Gender rights and hypocrisy in the postwar era
The United States promoted women’s rights abroad during occupation reforms in Germany and Japan, urging equal rights protections in new constitutions, while at home not achieving constitutional gender equality.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) effort would continue for decades without resolution—an irony noted in Kennedy’s readings.
Mexican American women in wartime and cross-racial integration
Mexican American women entered skilled and clerical roles in the defense industries, including as clerks, technicians, and riveters, often overcoming harassment, sexism, and racial prejudice.
Interracial exchanges occurred on the factory floor as women from different backgrounds collaborated and challenged segregation in daily work life.
After wartime, many Mexican American women pursued higher-paying jobs and saved money, challenging traditional gender roles at home, though many still returned to domestic duties.
Mexican Americans and the Bracero Program
Prewar context and the Great Depression
Mexican labor was a key part of California’s agricultural workforce, comprising about 75\% of the state’s agricultural labor force in some areas like Riverside.
The Great Depression and widespread unemployment led to a brutal deportation/repatriation campaign (roughly 400{,}000 to 1{,}000{,}000 Mexicans repatriated; many were U.S. citizens, including children).
Wartime shift and the Bracero program
With men overseas, U.S. labor demand surged and Mexican labor became central to sustaining agriculture.
The Bracero program (launched August 1942) recruited Mexican workers under contracts guaranteeing food, housing, medical care, and transportation; the term bracero means “one who works with their arms.”
Officially, the program brought over 200{,}000 workers; unofficial inflows were larger, totaling well over 4{,}000{,}000 Mexican nationals to the United States by the program’s end in 1964 (lasting 22 years beyond its initial wartime purpose).
Wages and conditions in Bracero camps
Official terms guaranteed a minimum wage of 0.30/hour and humane treatment, but reality often differed: camps were often unsanitary, crowded, poorly housed, and workers faced exposure to pesticides and contaminated water.
Braceros sometimes organized strikes for better wages and working conditions and faced harsh retaliation by employers.
Regional concentration and impact
In California’s Riverside area, Braceros became the single largest workforce in citrus picking, comprising up to 80\% of the agricultural labor force in that locale.
Social and economic implications
The Bracero program facilitated a cycle of temporary labor without creating lasting pathways for permanent settlement or broad social integration for immigrant workers.
It highlighted tensions around immigration policy, labor rights, and race in American society during wartime and after.
Japanese Internment: Policy, Camps, and Lived Experience
Demographic background
Before and during WWII, a substantial Japanese population lived in Hawaii and the U.S. mainland: about 200{,}000 Japanese people of Japanese descent in Hawaii and 120{,}000 on the mainland; among mainland Japanese, there were 40{,}000 issei (first-generation, noncitizens) and 80{,}000 nisei (second-generation, U.S.-born citizens).
Executive Order 9066 and the evacuation policy
In February 1942, the U.S. army sought authority to remove Japanese residents from the West Coast for security reasons; President Roosevelt approved this order (EO 9066) to relocate a large portion of Japanese Americans to camps.
Initially, a limited relocation of a small number occurred, but March 1942 marked a broader move to bar most West Coast residents from leaving the region.
Assembly centers and relocation camps
People were relocated first to assembly centers (e.g., at fairgrounds and racetracks) and then to longer-term relocation centers in remote desert or swampland areas across the interior West and Southwest.
Living conditions within camps were harsh: small cabins, limited privacy, cramped family quarters, and fencing with guards.
Daily life and resilience inside camps
Detainees engaged in sports, schools, newspapers, and some agricultural or farm work to pass time and build community.
Government propaganda versus lived reality
The government framed internment as a necessary precaution, labeling detainees as evacuees, residents, or colonists, while families described disruption to home life and injustice.
Differences with other Axis-related detentions
Germans and Italians in the U.S. were also detained, but on a far smaller scale and not by mass relocation on the West Coast.
About 11{,}500 German Americans and 3{,}000 Italian Americans were detained; compared to the roughly 100{,}000 Japanese residents removed from the West Coast, this disparity raises questions about race and civil liberties.
Most German and Italian detainees were U.S. citizens, whereas many Japanese internees were U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization restrictions that limited naturalization for non-white populations.
The propaganda and public perception of Japanese Americans
Dr. Seuss-era propaganda contributed to the public perception of Japanese Americans as a security risk.
Loyalty tests, releases, and legal challenges
By 1944, loyalty tests were used to determine who could leave the camps; several thousand people were allowed to depart, with some joining the military or awaiting release for good behavior.
Approximately a quarter of those detained were released due to loyalty pledges; a smaller number joined segregated Japanese units in the military.
Legal challenges, including Hirabayashi v. United States and Korematsu v. United States, contested the constitutionality of the relocation; the Supreme Court declined to adjudicate on the overall constitutionality of internment in Korematsu, while acknowledging the government’s justification for relocation in the context of national security.
Enemy Aliens: Germans and Italians
FBI and Alien Registration Act groundwork
The FBI had long tracked German and Italian individuals in the U.S. as potential security threats, prior to WWII, under the Alien Registration Act (1940) which registered and fingerprinted nearly 4.9 million resident aliens.
Arrests and detentions of Germans and Italians expanded after U.S. entered WWII, with cooperation from the State Department in extradition efforts in the Western Hemisphere.
Scale and comparison to Japanese internment
German and Italian detentions numbered in the thousands (e.g., 11,500 German Americans and 3,000 Italian Americans detained domestically), vastly outnumbered by Japanese internment in sheer scale and in racial distinctiveness.
The rationale for internment varied, but the difference in treatment underscored racial bias versus political threat assessments.
Propaganda and civil liberties discussion
The wartime atmosphere allowed for broad imprisonment in the name of security while civil liberties faced significant challenges; the Korematsu and Hirabayashi cases are central to debates about constitutional rights during wartime.
End of War and Aftermath: Turning Points and Global context
The Allied push and the trajectory toward victory in Europe
By 1945, Nazi Germany was on the defensive as the Soviet Union and Allied forces advanced from both east and west, liberating Italy and France from fascist rule.
Franklin D. Roosevelt died in April 1945; Harry S. Truman became president and faced the endgame in Europe.
The Pacific theater and Japan’s surrender
The Potsdam Declaration outlined terms for Japan’s unconditional surrender; when Japan did not respond, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945).
The Soviet Union invaded Japanese-held Manchuria on August 9, 1945, the same day as the Nagasaki bombing, accelerating Japan’s surrender.
Japan formally surrendered shortly after, bringing WWII to a close.
Postwar shift toward the Cold War
With WWII over, the U.S. entered a long period of geopolitical realignment and a new era of global tensions—the Cold War.
In the U.S., the home-front policies and civil liberties debates from the war era continued to influence civil rights struggles in the subsequent decades.
Primary Sources, People, and Key Figures to Remember
A. Philip Randolph and the March on Washington Movement
Leadership role in advocating anti-discrimination in defense industries and expanded Black employment during WWII.
Founding president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; the eventual push for a mass demonstration led Roosevelt to issue EO 8802.
Executive Order 8802 (1941) and the FEPC
Policy to prohibit discrimination in defense industries; established FEPC for enforcement; the order is widely regarded as a groundbreaking step toward federal civil rights policy, though it lacked comprehensive enforcement power initially.
The Great Migration and Black labor gains
Shifts in regional employment and rising participation of Black workers in defense industries—though in limited proportions—contributed to a broader civil rights narrative.
Rosie the Riveter and Adele Ehrenberg
Symbolic representation of women’s wartime labor; individual stories illustrate real opportunities and barriers for women entering nontraditional roles.
Bracero program and Mexican American labor
The wartime labor demand catalyzed a large-scale guest worker program with long-term social and economic consequences for Mexican communities.
Japanese internment and select Supreme Court cases
The relocation policy, interior camps, loyalty tests, and legal challenges (Korematsu, Hirabayashi) form a central civil liberties case study in wartime America.
Dates to remember for the war’s end and aftermath
Hiroshima: August 6, 1945; Nagasaki: August 9, 1945; Japan’s surrender follow shortly thereafter; Potsdam Declaration issued July 1945.
Key Data and Formulas to Memorize
Proportions and growth in Black defense employment
Early WWII aircraft sector Black representation: 2/100 = 0.02 (1940) → 3/100 = 0.03 (1942) → 8/100 = 0.08 (end of WWII)
Population movement and participation
One in nine Americans in the military: rac{1}{9} \approx 0.111…
Women in workforce by war’s end: 0.36 (36%)
Black women in defense labor: from 0.065 (6.5%) to 0.18 (18%) of female defense workers
Bracero program scale and duration
Official arrivals: 200{,}000 workers; overall impact: >4{,}000{,}000 Mexican nationals employed under the program by 1964
Labor wages under contract: 0.30/hour minimum wage; housing and transportation guaranteed
Duration: 1942–1964 → 22 years
Detention scales and comparisons
West Coast internment: about 100{,}000 Japanese residents relocated; roughly 80\%-90\% of interned were of Japanese descent on the West Coast
German and Italian detentions: about 11{,}500 German Americans and 3{,}000 Italian Americans detained; relative scale vs. Japanese internment demonstrates racialization effects
Wartime casualties and surrender dates (contextual references)
Hiroshima: 08/06/1945; Nagasaki: 08/09/1945; Japan’s surrender process began shortly after, with formal surrender following in the weeks after
Connections to Earlier Lectures and Real-World Relevance
The home-front experience links to earlier discussions of citizenship, civil rights, and democratic ideals—how wartime needs created pressure to expand access to jobs and fights against discrimination, even as racial hierarchies persisted.
The shift in women’s labor force participation foreshadows long-term changes in gender roles in the U.S. economy, even as postwar norms attempted to revert to prewar patterns.
The Bracero program and internment camps illustrate the tension between national security, economic needs, immigration policy, and civil liberties—a pattern visible in subsequent U.S. policy debates.
The NPR clip’s focus on executive orders and federal contracting highlights ongoing tensions between symbolic policy changes and enforceable civil rights protections.
Ethical, Philosophical, and Practical Implications
Ethical tensions around wartime security versus civil liberties (Korematsu, Hirabayashi) and the long-term harms of mass detention of American citizens.
The hypocrisy of exporting democratic rights abroad (in postwar occupation reforms) while domestic civil rights lagged (ERA discussions and limited home incorporation of equal rights).
The role of the state in shaping labor rights and integration: EO 8802 as a federal intervention, but with limited enforcement; the FEPC’s growth shows both potential and limits of executive action.
The interplay between economic necessity (war demand for labor) and ongoing racial/ethnic discrimination: progress in numbers, but persistent structural inequities in pay, job types, and advancement.
Notes on Terminology and Concepts to Remember
FEPC: Fair Employment Practice Committee, established to investigate nondiscrimination in defense employment.
EO 8802: Executive Order 8802 (signed 1941) prohibiting discrimination in the defense industry; later expanded enforcement power in 1943.
EO 9066: Executive Order 9066 (1942) authorizing the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans; central to the internment episode.
Bracero program: Bilateral labor agreement beginning in 1942 that brought Mexican agricultural workers to the United States under work contracts.
Issei and Nisei: First-generation (noncitizen) and second-generation (U.S.-born citizens) Japanese Americans, respectively.
Double Victory: Randolph’s concept of achieving victory against fascism abroad and racism at home.
Lend-Lease and wartime production: Noted as contributing to U.S. economic stabilization and job creation during WWII.
Summary Takeaways for Exam Preparation
WWII produced a paradox: a surge in civil rights-oriented policies (FEPC, EO 8802) and a dramatic expansion of marginalized groups into defense industries, alongside persistent racial segregation and the mass internment of Japanese Americans.
The home front illuminates how wartime needs can accelerate social change but also deepen inequities, depending on the institutions, legal framework, and political will in place.
Key figures and moments include A. Philip Randolph and the March on Washington movement, the EO 8802 and FEPC, Rosie the Riveter, the Bracero program, and the internment of Japanese Americans under EO 9066, with related Supreme Court cases shaping civil liberties jurisprudence.
The end of WWII marks both a victory in global conflict and the beginning of a long, contested path toward civil rights and social reform in the United States.