Limitation Order L-85 (see my May, June and
July columns), which governed the manufacture and styling of civilian apparel
in the United States during World War II, limited the amount of material
in garments, eliminated many stylish features on dresses and coats and
made ample trimming impermissible. As the war drew to a close, and
victory became imminent and then achieved, women rapidly lost patience
with the official reasons given to keep the fashion-control order in place.
The requirement to conserve fabrics and fibers to avoid military shortages
made little sense as Allied armies entered and then conquered the German
homeland, came within striking distance of Japan itself and next secured
Japanese unconditional surrender. American women yearned to return
to unlimited freedom of choice in fiber selection as well as textile yardage,
pocket dimensions, cuffs, collars, bows and ruffles.
Click image to enlarge
|
.... |
As World War II drew to a victorious close
for America, women increasingly resorted to wearing desired clothing in
spite of U.S. War Production Board Limitation Order L-85 regulations. This
young service wife attending to a self-help laundry in San Diego during
1945, with her decorated Marine veteran husband who recently returned from
the Pacific battlefield, wears a pleated skirt in open defiance of government-imposed
material restrictions that technically discouraged such excess in yardage.
(Collection Shelby Stanton) |
.
In fact, there were problems enforcing Order
L-85 throughout the war. As early as August, 1943, the War Production Board
(WPB) was forced to take stern action against several manufacturers and
retailers of women’s garments that deliberately violated restrictive specifications
in the interest of salesmanship to meet customer demand. The swell of homefront
disgruntlement continued to grow against regulations increasingly viewed
as irrelevant to the actual economic war situation. On April 30, 1944,
over a month before the Allied invasion of France, the War Production Board
relented to issuance of minor amendments relaxing strict design and manufacturing
standards in several types of feminine apparel.
By late 1944, as newspapers reported German
frontline resistance rapidly crumbling, the revocation of the order was
openly predicted and the fashion industry began experiencing great uncertainty.
The government exerted considerable pressure to prevent lifting of its
regulations and promised early liberalization of garment component supplies.
For example, the War Production Board officially announced on September
22, 1944, that abolishment of order L-85 was scheduled for the date when
the European war ends. Nevertheless, in actual fact, Limitation Order L-85
did not cease effect despite the conclusion of the war both in Europe and
the Pacific.
During World War II, American servicemen and
sweethearts on the homefront dated, became engaged, and married in a government-controlled
fashion climate almost entirely dictated by the restrictions of U.S. War
Production Board Limitation Order L-85, which mandated fewer frills and
shorter feminine lengths in an effort to conserve material resources for
military purposes.
(Collection Shelby Stanton) |
.... |
Click image to enlarge
|
.
As 1945 drew to a close, Limitation Order
L-85 even survived the demise of its creator. The War Production Board
was abolished effective November 3, 1945, by Executive Order 9638 issued
October 4, 1945, and was succeeded by the Civilian Production Administration
(CPA). The new agency maintained that conserving limited supplies of clothing
material was still important to postwar economic stability. The following
summer the government decided to reinforce abidance to its regulatory law.
On June 13, 1946, the CPA ordered sellers of women’s apparel, which were
being influenced by the new longer and more ample foreign styles originating
in Paris, to redesign them in conformity to material conservation measures
still in effect within the United States.
In spite of this crackdown, the American public
and fashion industry resorted to widespread violations of the governmental
limitation order throughout 1946. Manufacturers produced millions
of dollars worth of illegal dresses reflecting the latest Parisian fashion
trends. A lowered hemline was advocated by the public. Time Magazine
quoted the postwar feelings of a typical consumer, “In Kansas City, Mo.,
Mrs. Eleanor Medsker, a middle-aged grandmother, penned an outraged letter
to CPA: ‘How would you like to wear trousers so short that they come halfway
to your neck? On account of you, I haven't been able to buy a dress long
enough to come below my knees since the war started. I'm no bobbysoxer…I
bought a suit that fits perfectly except that I can't sit down without
hiking the skirt way up…” (Time Magazine, October 21, 1946). The short
wartime pinup flair that Order L-85 brought to Middle America through Hollywood
and New York patriotism to boost soldier fighting morale (see my July II
column) was now passé in a country returning to conservative peacetime
traditional values.
Click image to enlarge
|
.... |
The American climate of 1945-46 was subdued
by the realization of considerable wartime loss and great numbers of returning
wounded soldiers. The former spirit of patriotic frivolity was cast aside
as women sought to lower their hemlines in conformity with a new fashion
consciousness. Here convalescent serviceman Paul Reddin of Neptune, New
Jersey, is shown at a late-war party with his date and other women wearing
sweeping long gowns and “wasteful” stylish features strictly prohibited
by U.S. War Production Board Limitation Order L-85.
(Collection Shelby Stanton) |
.
There was intense political and public pressure
to abolish the unpopular measure. By October, over a year after World War
II ended, even CPA administrator John D. Small finally acknowledged that
further regulatory control was unjustified in view of the plentiful supplies
of woolens, rayon and cotton goods available on a nationwide basis. On
October 21, 1946, Limitation Order L-85 was formally revoked and the United
States returned to free enterprise in the world of fashion.
Note: My information for this topic is based
on personal research in U.S. National Archives Record Group 179.2 and supplemented
by contemporary newspaper archives.
|
