NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE B y March of this year, the United States had sent more than $30 billion worth of war matériel to the Ukraine conflict. This support, while worthwhile, has resulted in serious drawdowns of U.S. military stockpiles and exposed real problems with the existing U.S. defense-industrial base. In response to this, some commentators are arguing that the U.S. — to support Ukraine, prepare for possible conflict with China, and be ready for other threats — needs a full-scale industrial policy to restore its war-production capacity, as it had in World War II. The best example of harnessing the private economy for national needs comes from World War II’s Liberty ships.
The world stage may seem chaotic today, but it’s nothing compared with January 1941. The German Wehrmacht had conquered the Benelux nations, Denmark, France, Poland, and Norway and was roving almost at will across North Africa. The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy had been in conflict in China for over three years, occupied modern-day Vietnam, and taken an aggressive posture toward the southwest Pacific.
Fascism, a dictatorial system of government with a severely regimented economy, dominated every corner of the globe. The United States could not directly engage in the conflict, mainly due to three Neutrality Acts passed in the 1930s. However, on January 3, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced the construction of 200 “emergency” supply vessels as part of the Long Range Shipbuilding Program to provide war support for Great Britain in the European Theater. The Emergency Shipbuilding Program and the construction of Liberty ships would later eclipse this program.
In September 1941, the United States launched the first EC-2 type (Emergency Cargo, Type 2) ships, the most widely built ship of the Second World War. These ships acted as aircraft transports, cargo ships, tankers, and tank transports for the Allies in World War II — mainly for Australia, France, Great Britain, and the United States. The first of the EC-2s was named the S.S. Patrick Henry, after the Revolutionary patriot who gave the famed “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. Consequently, the EC-2 ships were colloquially called “Liberty ships.”
The Second World War was one of human history’s deadliest and most devastating conflicts. The Allied victory was made possible by the collective efforts of many countries and their respective contributions to the war effort. And one crucial component of this victory came from the Liberty ships of America’s Merchant Marine.
Liberty ships were intended to provide cost-effective and efficient transportation of supplies and troops to the Allies. Over 2,700 Liberty ships were built in 18 shipyards along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts during the war; of these, 200 were lost. Private-sector shipyards in these coastal communities, including Houston, Texas; Sausalito, Calif.; and Wilmington, N.C., made massive contributions to America’s war effort. These contributions were vital to the overall success of the war effort, as they ensured the timely delivery of supplies and munitions to the European and Pacific theaters of war.
While America had the convenience of being geographically separate from most of the European and Pacific theaters, cargo still needed to be sent 3,000 miles east to Europe and as much as 6,000 miles west in the Pacific. The Liberty ship was a slow (11 knots per hour) 440-foot-long ship with a fuel range of 17,000 miles. This ship design, called an “ugly duckling” by President Roosevelt, was the engine of American military logistics.
Liberty ships had a carrying capacity of 4,380 net tons. In other words, one Liberty ship could carry 14.5 million gallons of fuel, or 440 light tanks, or 430,000 cases of C-rations — enough to feed 3.4 million sailors and soldiers for one day.
One reason for the successful production of these ships was the strength of the American economy. The capitalist economy produced goods and services faster and more efficiently than the communist economy of Russia or the fascist economy of Japan. This ability to make more matériel more quickly was critical in wartime when there was an urgent need for an increase in the production of ships and other supplies. This ability to surge production was crucial not only to America’s war effort but also because of the Lend-Lease Act, passed in 1941, which led to $50 billion ($847 billion in 2023 dollars) in military aid going to Allies such as Australia, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union.
The efficiency of the American capitalist system, coupled with the dedication and hard work of the American people, ensured that the Liberty-ship program was a phenomenal success. These ships, often called the “workhorses of World War II,” were vital in transporting troops, munitions, and supplies.
The United States’ success in shipbuilding during World War II was a testament to the superiority of capitalism as an economic system. Unlike the many other nations that relied on state ownership and control of production, the American economy was driven by private enterprise and the pursuit of profit. This arrangement allowed American companies to respond quickly and efficiently to the demands of the war effort, increasing their capacity for shipbuilding at an unprecedented pace, with the assurances of performance incentives and cost-plus contracts.
The competitive nature of the capitalist economy also fueled innovation and efficiency, resulting in the development of new technologies and manufacturing processes that further increased productivity. This allowed the United States to outpace other nations regarding shipbuilding capacity, even though the American production ramp-up began later. In this system, workers were not exploited but instead were aligned with a common goal of patriotism with incentives for increased performance.
Furthermore, the American capitalist system offered incentives for creativity and entrepreneurship, which allowed American businesses to attract the best minds and talent for the job. The ability of companies to invest in research and development with the hope of high rewards led to the creation of new manufacturing methods, which allowed for the production of more ships in less time.
That is not to say that the American government had no role in the military-industrial complex — it was, after all, a war. American war production in World War II was not the product of a command economy, like communism or fascism, because it did not involve the centralization of economic decision-making and ownership of the means of production in the hands of the state. Instead, it was a mix of private- and public-sector involvement, with the government providing incentives and regulations to mobilize the resources necessary for the war effort. The American government was a customer, not a commander. This relationship allowed for economic flexibility and innovation and preserved individual freedoms and property rights.
As Henry Stimson, the United States secretary of war during World War II, said, “If you are going to try to go to war, or to prepare for war, in a capitalist country, you have got to let business make money out of the process or business won’t work.” In contrast, command economic systems, such as the fascist states of Germany and Japan, relied heavily on centralized planning, often lacking competition, innovation, and experimentation during wartime conditions. Workers in these systems were unmotivated due to the lack of the incentives available to American and British workers in capitalist systems, and productivity often suffered.
Germany was also innovative in its naval designs through 1943, particularly with submarines, relying on well-established pre-war private-sector naval engineers. However, the Kriegsmarine suffered massive steel shortages, relied heavily on forced labor in its naval yards, and struggled to reach peak capacity.
Japan relied heavily on state-owned naval yards for production and produced only one-fifth of the naval tonnage of the United States during the war, and one-half of Britain’s. Private Japanese naval yards were hesitant to innovate and upgrade because of doubts about financing from the Japanese government.
As historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote, “Freedom turns out to be a military asset.”
Liberty ships were a crucial component of the Allied victory in the Second World War and were a direct product of capitalism. Without Liberty ships supplying the necessary war matériel from the industrial machine of the American economy, there would have been no victory. The Liberty ships will forever be remembered as a symbol of the industrial might of the United States. It is a testament to the American spirit of innovation, dedication, and hard work that such a monumental task could be accomplished.
Coming back to modern times and viewing the other side of the Ukraine conflict, we find that Russia’s war efforts have become complicated within their centralized industrial war complex. In 2016, Russian president Vladimir Putin decreed that Rostec, the state-owned defense manufacturer, would take control of UralVagonZavod, the largest tank manufacturer in Russia. And the Russian military relies almost exclusively on state-owned railways to supply the army. A new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies indicates that the modern Russian war machine is struggling to keep up with supply in manufacturing tanks and delivery due to a shortage of components, from Western-manufactured optics to the humble ball bearing. Thus, the state-backed war manufacturers are finding it difficult to adapt and sustainably deliver state-of-the-art matériel to the battlefield in Ukraine.
In the modern era, delivering military equipment to Europe has significantly changed. The once mighty Liberty ships that carried arms and supplies during the early 1940s have been replaced by colossal aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster. However, the current situation of supplying Ukraine with existing stockpiles instead of moving into war production like before raises some critical questions about America’s role in the world and our state of military preparedness. Whatever the answers to these critical questions, we can seek guidance from the examples of our past and the ships that protected liberty at home and armed it abroad.