Myths of the Golden Era -- Exploded!

[Atomic Age]

Myth: "Orson Welles panicked the entire nation with his 1938 'War of the Worlds' Broadcast."

The Facts:

The best source of information on the post-broadcast reaction remains Professor Hadley Cantril's landmark study "The Invasion From Mars," published in 1940, and reissued in 1966. Cantril's estimates of the program's audience and of the numbers of listeners who reacted to the broadcast are the most accurate available, and form the basis for most of what's been written about the program over the decades. It's a book that's constantly quoted -- but rarely seems to have actually been read by those who are doing the quoting.

So what, exactly, does Cantril say?

Professor Cantril estimates, first of all, that no more than six million listeners heard the broadcast. This figure is derived from a scientific poll taken by the American Institute of Public Opinion six weeks after the broadcast, as well as from the C. E. Hooper Inc. Hooperrating survey actually taken on the night of October 30th - Cantril's figure splits the difference between the two surveys to come up with the 6 million figure. Of these, Cantril estimates, based again on the AIPO survey, that about 1.7 million accepted the program as a news bulletin and 1.2 million were sufficiently distressed to do something about it. In other words, nearly a third of those who heard the program believed it -- and nearly a quarter of those who heard it were, in Cantril's words, excited by it.

Impressive -- and, the source of the "Night That Panicked America" legend. But was "America" truly panicked?

Consider this. The population of the United States according the the 1940 census (the closet available figure to 1938) was approximately 150.6 million. If 1.2 million people were "excited" by WOTW, that amounts to less than one per cent of the total population -- and by no stretch of the imagination can that be considered a nationwide panic. Cantril's estimate includes everyone who "reacted" to the broadcast, whether they picked up the phone to call a neighbor or ran screaming into the street -- so the number of people who took the latter extreme would be substantially less than one percent of the total population.

So -- why has the legend persisted? Why do we have these images of frightened families surging into the streets, fleeing some unspeakable fate?

Press coverage has a lot to do with it - and again, timing is everything. The newspapers were still smarting from the beating they'd taken from radio during the European Crisis -- and WOTW gave the print media a chance to wag the Finger Of Alarm at the irresponsibility of this Upstart Medium. The story was played up big in the New York papers -- where the tabloid Daily News and Daily Mirror, especially, gave the story gigantic headlines and pages of inside coverage. Even the staid New York Times gave the story banner placement. The excesses of the New York press can be excused, perhaps, by the fact that a lot of the "panic" was centered in New Jersey, where the alleged invasion took place -- but looking back on the newspaper coverage today, one has to wonder just how carefully researched it actually was.

In any case, the legends took root -- and have entered into our national folklore. All the statistics one could ever want to quote will never dispel the myth that all the nation fled in panic on that Halloween Eve 1938. It's a good story, and it's an unfortunate truth that that a good story beats out straight history every time.

Myth exploded.

In addition, the broadcast would only have been "live" on the east coast and part of the mid west. The rest of the country would have heard a recorded transcription an hour or so later, at which time the announcement that it was only a radio show was being made very clear.

Of course to the news men of the day, the east coast WAS the whole country. (they probably STILL think that)

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

Myth: "During the 1930s and 1940s, everybody smoked."

The Facts: If you believe movies and advertisements, the Golden Era existed in a constant haze of tobacco smoke -- and a cigarette was the universal badge of adulthood. Housewives and businessmen, laborers and executives, big-time athetes and poolroom loafers, the overwhelming majority of adults, men and women alike, regularly puffed away -- that's the common belief. But the reality is more complicated.

The origin of the "everybody smoked" myth has a lot to do with World War 2. According to a detailed government study of "Cigarette Smoking Behavior In The United States" around 80 percent of American men who were of the right age to serve during the war became habitual smokers for at least part of their lives. For American men born between 1900 and 1925, "everybody smoked" is a pretty reasonable assessment. But for women, who make up half the population, the story is quite different.

Smoking became popular for women in the 1920s, the story goes, as a symbol of freedom -- that's how they marketed it, anyway. But according to the statistics, the campaigns were quite a bit less successful than the myths would have us believe. During the flapper era, the percentage of women who smoked never surpassed 20 percent. Smoking among women increased somewhat during the thirties, but at no time during that decade did more than 35 percent of women smoke. Among all American women born between 1900 and 1924 the percentage who became smokers never exceeded 50 percent -- and the percentage didn't reach that level until the 1970's! During the Era itself, the majority of American women didn't smoke.

A lot of people did smoke, and smoke was a pervasive ingredient of the atmosphere of the time, there's no denying that. But "a lot" isn't "everybody" -- and for women, it wasn't even "most."

Myth exploded.

My dad was in the Air Force during the Korean war, but was stationed in Germany. He "smoked" because if you were a smoker, you were issued cigarette rations. Well if you were in Germany in 1951, you could trade a pack of American cigarettes for Hummel figurines, Cuckoo Clocks, you name it. He never actually smoked.

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

Another thing that bothers me is the number of people who still believe WW2 ended the Depression. Hogwash, it was over by 1934, 8 years before the US entered WW2.

I was surprised myself. I read the same books and articles you read. It was only when I read some books and magazine articles published in the thirties that I found it out. One that struck me was a description of a party right after Repeal, at which the celebrants wore paper hats with funny mottoes like "It's hell when your wife is a widow" and "Wasn't the depression awful?"

Then I did some research and found out the US economy held up pretty well through 1930, bottomed in 1931 and 32, began recovering in 1933 and was back on track in 1934.

By 1936 the recovery was so strong, the government put the brakes on the economy fearing another "boom and bust" cycle. This resulted in the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937 and 38.

Don't tell my Grandfather that the depression was over in 34, when he lost his business and had to move from Ohio to Arizona to find work.

Yes things somewhat were better by 34, but unemployment was still over 15% in 1940, and didn't drop below that number until war production started. (contrary to popular belief, war production started BEFORE December 7th 1941)

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

I wonder how many people stopped drinking after the repeal of prohibition, just because "the thrill was gone" now that it was legal?

Doug

 

[HodgePodge]

Another thing that bothers me is the number of people who still believe WW2 ended the Depression. Hogwash, it was over by 1934, 8 years before the US entered WW2.

In a book I've recently been flipping through (it's a collection of recollected stories from people who lived through the depression) called "Ten Lost Years", more than one of the men interviewed considered WWII to have been what really turned things around, so if it's a misconception, it's one that has been perpetuated since "way back when."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Some interesting figures on the Gross Domestic Product during the Depression here.

A lot of people will spin the figures one way or another to promote a political point of view, but there are some things to consider in looking at these numbers. One is that using 1929 as a benchmark of normality isn't exactly accurate -- 1929 was the peak of the twenties boom, and as such was the result of a bubble. But that's what people are doing when they say "it took until World War 2 for the nation to recover" -- when you look at the chart, you'll see that it took the economic bubble of the War to bring the figures back to 1929 levels. But from 1934 to 1937, the GDP increased steadily, and by 1937 it was back in the nineties, which is pretty impressive compared to where it was four years earlier. And the 1938 recession was merely a minor bump compared to the depths of the Depression.

It did take longer for employment to improve, but it was improving steadily thruout the mid-thirties, minus the 1938 recession. The main reason it took so long is because it had reached the depths it did -- over 24 percent of the workforce was idle in early 1933, but by 1937 that figure had improved to a bit over 14 percent. That's still bad, but it's a lot, lot better than it was. The recession knocked it back down to 18 percent, but it regained ground over the next two years, and then the defense boom started to kick in in 1940.

Many at the time believed that if FDR trusted his instincts instead of listening to his political advisers, the 1938 recession might have been blunted or might not have happened at all -- which would have changed the figures considerably.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In addition, the broadcast would only have been "live" on the east coast and part of the mid west. The rest of the country would have heard a recorded transcription an hour or so later, at which time the announcement that it was only a radio show was being made very clear.

Of course to the news men of the day, the east coast WAS the whole country. (they probably STILL think that)

Doug

The transcription procedure wasn't used for WOTW -- most CBS stations on the West Coast didn't yet have recording equipment installed in 1938. The West, or at least those CBS stations that chose to carry the program, took the Mercury Theatre live at 5 in the afternoon -- early enough that most people were busy with other matters and weren't paying any attention to the radio.

Transcription delays for the West didn't start to be used on a wide basis until 1939, when both NBC and CBS authorized the procedure for selected programs. It didn't start to be used for all programming until after the war.

The opposition program on NBC, by the way, was The Chase and Sanborn Hour, featuring Bergen & McCarthy, the most popular program on the air in the fall of '38 -- with an estimated audience of 37 million people. Columnist Dorothy Thompson suggested the reason the panic wasn't widespread was that "all the intelligent people were listening to Charlie McCarthy."

 

[Stanley Doble]

There are a lot of angles on this. I suppose to a lot of people the depression ended when they got a good job whether it was in 1934 or 1940.

Roosevelt thought the recovery was strong enough that he put the brakes on the economy in 1937. The twenties boom was an artificial boom that led to a bust in the thirties. So to take the economy of the late twenties as "normal" would be a mistake.

The stock market did not exceed the 1929 peak until 1954. So if you were an investor who bought at the peak, you could say the depression lasted until then.

By most benchmarks 1930 was not a bad year although economic activity was sinking. Those who underestimated the severity of the depression were not fools, they knew what was happening but they had no idea it would go as far as it did. 1931 and 1932 were the worst, then the economy started to pick up again. 1933 and 34 were years of recovery.

You would have to go back to sources written in the 1930s to see things the way they did then. Memory is a funny thing and so is journalism. I have spoken to people who lived through those times and some thought it was great, no kidding. I had a teacher who graduated university in the early 30s and went right to work for the government. He had a good salary, got married, bought a house and a car, no problems. My mother's family were old fashioned farmers. They felt a bit of a pinch for a while but they were frugal people not used to throwing money around even when they had it. The depression made little or no difference to their lifestyle. None of them lost their farms or anywhere near it. They always had plenty to eat, warm clothes, a comfortable home, and work to do. My mother told me they had a phone and a car, luxuries some of their neighbors could not afford. These were not rare exceptions. They were commonplace.You won't find their stories in any book. In fact I am surprised how vehement the denial of the truth can be. The facts are available to anyone who wants to look them up.

Speaking of unemployment. Right now unemployment in the US is over 20% according to those who keep accurate statistics at Shadow Government Statistics. This includes those who unemployed but are excluded from official statistics by changes made in to their method of calculating statistics the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I might be jumping in where I don't belong, but after prohibition was repealed were there not areas that remained "dry" that could have had an influence on the lower per capita consumption? I would hope that someone would have stopped and said "hey, wait, of course that person isn't drinking in 1934, it's still illegal where they live!"

edit: "reply with quote" still isn't working for me. :S

That's quite true -- there were 18 states that stayed dry after Repeal, and the last of them didn't go wet until the sixties. But there were dry states *before* Prohibition as well -- 22 states had passed their own Prohibition laws by 1915, and the Federal government banned the transport of alcoholic beverages thru the mail in 1913, cutting off the main flow of alcohol into those states. So, those facts would also have to be taken into account in considering the figures.

 

[Edward]

My dad was in the Air Force during the Korean war, but was stationed in Germany. He "smoked" because if you were a smoker, you were issued cigarette rations. Well if you were in Germany in 1951, you could trade a pack of American cigarettes for Hummel figurines, Cuckoo Clocks, you name it. He never actually smoked.

Doug

I've heard of cigarettes a currency in a lot of contexts. Makes sense. Still shocks me that the military ever issued them, though!

 

[Stanley Doble]

On the Orson Welles broadcast. I have seen an account by one of the people who was panicked by the program. He said one of the reasons it was so effective, was the long musical interludes in the early part of the program. He turned on his radio and tuned in to what he thought was a musical program. He missed the introduction where they said that it was fictional. The later part of the program, he and his family took for a real news broadcast because of the way it was set up.

Another factor was the threat of a European war. The news out of Europe was bad and there was a lot of tension in the air. A lot of people were expecting war at any time. So they were primed for a war panic and got sucked in without questioning what they were hearing.

 

[Stanley Doble]

The 1938 recession was deliberately caused by Roosevelt to prevent another boom/bust depression. This is not a secret, it was well known at the time.It was official government policy.

The chart you linked to is revealing and confirms what I have been saying. I wish it went back to 1900, it would give a clearer picture of the boom/bust cycle.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There was a lot of debate at the time in the public press -- the main theory discussed was that Roosevelt was concerned about pressure from conservatives to cut Federal spending, and he responded by making deep cuts in the WPA and PWA budgets, hitting the people hardest who could least afford to be hit, and having a domino effect on the rest of the economy. The other major theory ties in with the Federal Reserve tightening up the money supply, which is along the lines of what you're suggesting about blunting the pace of recovery. Whatever the specific reasoning, those cuts in relief programs occured, and were major contributors to the recession. They were entirely out of character for Roosevelt, but tie in well with the sort of thing you'd expect from people like Garner and Morgenthau, who were among those pushing for the Administration to rein in spending, especially in view of the coming mid-term elections.

The recession itself wasn't long -- it was over by the summer of 1938 -- but it did have political effects: the Republicans picked up over 80 seats in the House that fall, and half a dozen in the Senate, and they made Roosevelt's life a living hell over the next two years, especially with the debate over the Neutrality Act and Lend-Lease. Which is why I say things would have been better all around for him if he'd ignored Morgenthau and Garner and the rest of the naysayers, and stuck to his own course.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Another factor was the threat of a European war. The news out of Europe was bad and there was a lot of tension in the air. A lot of people were expecting war at any time. So they were primed for a war panic and got sucked in without questioning what they were hearing.

Even more specifically, the broadcast came just a month after the Munich crisis -- during which regular programming was constantly being interrupted for news bulletins and special broadcasts from the scene, in exactly the manner duplicated by Welles during his production. He and Howard Koch consciously used the format and phrasing of the Munich coverage in modeling the script for WOTW so as to make it sound as convincing as possible.

That may have been *too* convincing -- Cantril notes that a lot of the people who were taken in by the broadcast never had any thought of the invaders actually being "Martians" -- they were convinced that the Nazis were shelling New Jersey.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

THIS is the kind of stuff I like to know about the "Golden Era" - FACTS. The fact that not everything was a Hollywood movie, but not everyone was a racist, sexist, chainsmoking wifebeater. Both my grandparents worked in the 30s. I have handwritten letters from my grandmother dated 1937 to prove it. Neither of them smoked. According to my dad, my grandmother thought women who bobbed their hair in the 20s were "sl*ts" lol Grandma had hair down to her butt until the day she died! Another myth that every woman in 20s was a "flapper"

 

[FountainPenGirl]

Flappers

The Flapper myth is one I've dealt with. I've explained to people that the "Flapper" look was something created by younger people mostly in their '20's in more heavily populated areas. Trends tend not to spread across rural America as fast. Sometimes delayed for years. People forget that the teenagers of the victorian age were the adults of the '20's and didn't abandon their style because something they saw as less dignified comes along. Just as some of the Flappers kept their style into the thirties when the next group of young people were finding their look. I always say that one era didn't end and a new one starts. All eras overlap and one evolves into the next. Some slowly others more rapid.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A good friend of mine, since deceased, went to a girls' school in Shreveport, Louisana in the mid-twenties, and I have her school yearbooks for 1925 and 1926. There's not a flapper-looking gal in the bunch -- they've all got skirts past their knees and very sober-looking expressions. That's not to say they didn't cut up rowdy when not having their pictures taken, but knowing Florence as I did I doubt very much that it was widespread. She was a very proper lady -- not prudish or priggish, but *refined* in a very gentle, Southern kind of way. She'd no more have sipped bathtub gin from a flask and vo-do-de-o'd till midnight than she would have run naked thru the streets.

As a sign of how not-worldly she was, she was once propositioned by Tallulah Bankhead when they were in a show together on Broadway in the '30s, and had no idea whatsoever what she was getting at. She thought she was being invited over for tea, and had to be taken aside by one of the more hardboiled cast members and filled in on the details, which she took in with wide-eyed astonishment. She simply had no idea that such things as La Bankhead was suggesting were possible.

 

[Feraud]

The title of this thread caught my eye. In talking with people I've found myself dispelling numerous myths and misconceptions of what really was. It's amazing how much there is in the expression "How soon we forget.". I am amazed at how little some people know about even recent history. I not only mean the larger issues of the day but the many forgotten realities of everyday life that people don't understand. It'll be interesting to see what comes up.

Most people will readily tell you they dislike history. It is not surprising people forget the the past they know nothing about.
It is also understandable (and frustrating) when people latch on to simplistic stereotypes from the era.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's also dangerous to our understanding of the world. You'll find plenty of young people today who think the United States was the aggressor in World War 2 -- after all, we firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, and dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- and if they think that they have no idea at all of the forces that shaped the evolution of the world over the last half-century and made it what it is today.

Half an hour spent searching the "Yahoo Answers" website will show you just how ignorant of the past most people are -- and it's very very disturbing.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The Flapper myth is one I've dealt with. I've explained to people that the "Flapper" look was something created by younger people mostly in their '20's in more heavily populated areas. Trends tend not to spread across rural America as fast. Sometimes delayed for years. People forget that the teenagers of the victorian age were the adults of the '20's and didn't abandon their style because something they saw as less dignified comes along. Just as some of the Flappers kept their style into the thirties when the next group of young people were finding their look. I always say that one era didn't end and a new one starts. All eras overlap and one evolves into the next. Some slowly others more rapid.

I tend to think that as people get older they sometimes revert back to the styles, expressions, etc, that were in vogue when they were young. Case in point was my grandmother who was born in 1910. I have pics of her as a young woman in the 1920s, looking very much the flapper, as well as images of her in the '40s and '50s. In the latter her hair is in the '40s-early '50s style yet my memories of her from the 1970s till her death in 1999 was of her sporting a sort of a Dutch Boy or Jazz Age bob.